P. HIOKEY.]

17

1.--9.

14. It is not within your knowledge? —No. 15. You have been aware of some instances of this kind? —It has been stated so, but I cannot call any to mind. 16. You are a member of the Blackball Union? —Yes. 17. Was it not alleged that the dismissal of seven men there constituted a case of victimisation, which was immediately followed by a strike? —Yes, that is so. 18. If there were any remedy in the existing law, why did the strike take place? —I did not say there was any remedy. 19. You spoke of the ordinary fine?— Yes; but you said to prevent strikes. 20. I asked whether those fines had been successfully applied?— Yes. 21. In your opinion, the present law is insufficient to meet this?— Yes. 22. You said you have no suggestion to make as to a remedy?—No, I could not suggest any. I think the employers can always evade it by an excuse. 23. Was not any remedy suggested at the Trades Councils Conference?— There was something said about it—about the protection of witnesses. 24. The difficulty would be that you would not be able to prove the cause of a man's dismissal? —Yes. 25. Mr. Alison.] You stated in your evidence that the Denniston, Granity, and Blackball Unions had condemned the whole Bill from beginning to end?—l said they had passed resolutions against it. 26. Are you personally in favour of the Bill? —No, I am not. 27. Is there any portion of the Bill you are in favour of?— With the suggested amendments of the Conference I am in favour of it. 28. You would be in favour of the Bill being passed if it contained the amendments proposed by the Conference?— Yes. 29. Are you in favour of the existing law?—No, lam not. But I take it I am here to voice the opinions of the Conference, and we passed a resolution approving of the principles embodied in the Act of 1894. 30. And personally you are in favour of it?— Yes. 31. You consider it is in the interests of the workers that the Act should be maintained?— It depends entirely upon the form in which it is maintained. 32. You said you are in favour of the principal Act?—l said the Act of 1894. Since then it has been altered to a great extent, and is entirely different. 33. Are you in favour of the Act as it now stands? —No. 34. What do you object to?— Speaking from memory, I object to the restrictive powers, which practically cripple the unions. With regard to victimisation, an employer is equally guilty with a man charged with breach of an award or of striking for higher wages. 35. Are you opposed to the principle of the Act in that it is against strikes? —I consider that the unions should have the liberty to strike. 36. Do you think they should be permitted under the law?—To strike, I do. 37. As that is one of the strongest underlying principles of the law, you are practically opposed to the existing Act? —We uphold the Act of 1894, in which there was no restrictive legislation to impose all kinds of fines and penalties on people for striking. 38. Then you consider that the members of unions should have the right to strike and not be penalised if they do?— Yes. 39. Do you consider that the employers should be bound by an award of the Court?— Yes, because their cases are entirely different. There are certain cases in which a strike is justified. It is sometimes hard to produce evidence to show that what we maintain is a wrongful act has been committed, as in the Blackball strike. 40. But you consider that an employer should be bound by an award of the Arbitration Court? —I think so. 41. You do not consider that the workers should be bound by an award of the Arbitration Court? —I say that in regard to victimisation, wrongful dismissal, and intimidation they should have the right to strike. 42. You consider that the Blackball workers had a right to strike as they did ? —I certainly do. 43. And that any body of workers would be justified in striking if any circumstances arose which caused dissatisfaction amongst members of a u,nion? —I say that under similar circumstances to those of the Blackball strike the men would be justified in striking. 44. Assuming that a dispute came before the Arbitration Court, and an award of the Court was made, do you not consider the xvorkers should be bound by it during the duration of the award?—lf the award was such as to show that the Arbitration Court was not conversant with the position of the men, or the wages under the award were not sufficient to enable the men to maintain themselves in decency, I consider they would be justified in breaking it. 45. That is to say, if the award of the Court was not satisfactory to the union?— No. I distinctly stated that if under the award the men could not maintain themselves decently. 46. That is to say, if they were dissatisfied with the award?— Not necessarily. 47. If in any award of the Court the wages fixed were deemed to be insufficient by the union, that would be sufficient cause for the union to strike?—lf it were conclusively proved that the wages were not sufficient to enable men to live in decency they would be justified in striking. 48. Who would decide that?—l am not in a position to say. I am only voicing my own opinion. 49. Do you favour the principle of allowing the Arbitration Court to settle disputes?— Yes, I do, as a last resource. I favour the widening of the powers of the Conciliation Boards.

3—l. 9.