I.—9a.

MISS HOLMES.

109

dispute to the Arbitration Court, but whatever arrangement is come to is enforced. If a case is carried on to the Court, the dispute is reheard, and the decision of the Court is final and binding. The Bill proposes that, instead of having a Conciliation Board composed of people who are not concerned in the industry in which the dispute arises, for the future members of the Industrial Council must be concerned in the industry and consist of three employers and three employees. That is believed by the Minister to be a better method than the present one. It is also urged that there are people who are in the habit of fomenting disputes—who practically manufacture them —I am not saying it is so, but this has been alleged —and that these people are interested in creating disputes, and desire them in order to achieve popularity and publicity. This sort of thing has led to an uncomfortable position, and it is considered advisable to keep that element off the Board or Council, and to get the actual wage-earners and wage-payers face to face, unless either party objects, in which case the dispute can be carried on to the Court of Appeal—the Arbitration Court. Mrs. A. Pearce: This has only applied so far to the wage-earners who are working for the benefit of their employers. The Chairman: It applies now to pretty well all persons engaged for hire or reward—whether engaged in clerical or manual labour, or in trade, domestic servants, or even agricultural labourers. In fact, it seems to me that the Act applies to all hands in the Dominion, and as the Bill now stands there is no doubt about it applying. Miss Holmes: We are members of the committee which was appointed by an influential meeting of employers of domestic labour to meet the Domestic Workers' Union. We strove very hard to come to some agreement with them, and form some basis upon which we could agree before appealing to the Conciliation Board; but we could not come to an agreement. The workers made demands which we thought quite subversive of the interests of the home. The union appealed to the Arbitration Court, and we have heard nothing more from them. The Court sat and rose, and no application was made, and we have been much puzzled .at this want of action on the part of the workers, and desired to know whether it was due to some defect in the present law. 6. The Chairman (to Miss Holmes).] They did not carry out their promise to carry their case on to the Arbitration Court ?—No. 7. They have a right to do that?— Yes. 8. Is it possible that they are waiting until this amending Act is passed, in order to take action under it?—l think that is possibly so. I was anxious to know, because I promised our meeting of employers to watch the proceedings. We do not wish to be taken by surprise. 9. You would be notified in the first place before the case was taken before the Conciliation Board?— Yes. Mrs. Rawson: What is the difference in the clause now, because before they could not comply with the Act as they did not work for their employers' benefit really—they did not work to make an income for their employers. The Chairman: No; they minister to personal comfort. Mrs. Rawson: And their own as well. The Chairman: It may be a question whether they had any locus standi before the Court —whether domestic servants had any definite standing there. That is a question for a lawyer. But whether they could come under the Act before or not, they certainly will be able to do so under this Bill if it passes. If they are on an unsound footing now, their feet will be as on a rock then. Miss Holmes: I would not be afraid to meet the workers themselves at all. 10. The Chairman (to Miss Holmes).] Then you came to get information from us, while we expected information from you?—We do not know what you want. 11. We wanted to know how the Bill will affect domestic servants, but up to the present you have not taken any proceedings? —No, until the workers take action, our hands are tied. 12. In the meantime, have you formed any association of employers?— Not a registered one. We thought there was no necessity until we saw what the union was going to do. 13. Whatever happens in the future, you would be on better ground it you had a president, vice-president, a secretary, and a few printed rules. You would then have a footing before the Court. If you had no association you would be a conglomerate aggregation of people, and would not know what ground to take ?—I have little doubt that we should have our case quite clearly formulated. 14. So far as you understand the provisions of this Bill, have you any idea as to whether it would be a better method of settling disputes with regard to domestic servants ?—lnfinitely better. lam sure that by meeting three good domestic servants we could come to an arrangement with very little difficulty. 15. If you had to meet people who were not domestic servants, would there be a difficulty?— Yes, it is quite impossible. 16. Why do the domestic servants ask other people to represent them? As a rule, your sex is fairly fluent? Mrs. Rawson: Ido not think in the last instance they were fairly represented. When we came to look into matters, the president agreed that the demands would not do at all. They wanted unlimited liberty, to go out at night and to have latch-keys. It would not do to have young girls in that position :it would do away with the homes. There can be no homes under such conditions, and there will be fewer marriages. It is a very serious question. Mrs. Pearce: I do not think they realise what will happen. As Mrs. Rawson says, the mar-riage-rate will decline and the birth-rate will decline. Mrs. Rawson: You must give up housekeeping under such conditions.