W. PETOB. j

47

1.—9.

10. Mr. Arnold.] Can you tell us the date of the newspaper in which they appeared?—l will send the exact xvords to the Chairman. 11. The Chairman.] You xvill put them in?— Yes. [Extract from Wanganui Herald of 23rd July, 1908 : Report of Trades and Labour Conference.—Mr. Park (Otago) held that the new Bill xvas turning Mr. Millar out of the House. "We are not," he added, " allowed to strike, but if we like to take the matter into our own hands xve can force a lockout. We have only to agree to minimise the output, and xvhere xvould the employers be then? It would be impossible to carry out the strike penalties." Mr. Booth's remarks were not based on what was said by Mr. Park at that Conference or on anything that was said at that Conference. I asked him afterwards if he knexv about Mr. Park's statement, and he said " No," he xvas just expressing what he felt could be done by the workers if they so desired. Further, in this connection I may say I was recently conducting a case for the employers before the Arbitration Court and got it from a xvitness on oath that the secretary of the union had gone round among the xvorkers and told them not to hustle, as the award fixed their xvages —the xvages xx - ere not dependent upon the amount of work they did. 12. Can you give us the date of that incident? —I xvould rather not, Mr. Chairman, because it would probably cause a rumpus between the man and the union. I must ask you to take my statement for xvhat it is xvorth. There was some question raised as to Mr. Booth's claim about the loyalty of the employers generally to the Arbitration Court award. 13. To the xvhole system?— Yes, that is so. With regard to the employers' loyalty to the Arbitration Court awards I would point out that, although the number of cases for breaches of the awards against employers is much larger than the number of cases brought against the employees, that is not to say that the employers are comparatively more disloyal to awards that the workers are. In many of the cases xvhere employers are cited for breaches of these awards it means that workers have also been guilty of these breaches although they have not been cited. I do not mean to say they should have been cited, because I believe in cases where workers have laid themselves out to commit breaches and have been in collusion xvith employers, the Department has been just as ready to cite those employees as it was to cite the employers, and in many cases it has done so. The point I xvant to get at, hoxvever, is that if the cases against the employers were analysed it xvould be found in the great majority of instances that the breaches xvere due more to inadvertence, carelessness, and ignorance, than to an absolute desire to commit those breaches. The Federation has always strongly insisted upon employers being loyal to both the Arbitration Act and the Arbitration Court awards, and the instructions to the secretaries connected with the Federation from myself down are that we are not to protect the employer xvho lays himself out to commit breaches of an axvard, because, beyond all other reasons, we recognise that such employers are, so far as they do that sort of thing, taking a mean advantage of the fair employer. You yourself, Mr. Chairman, during Mr. Booth's evidence, referred to the permit system, and I judged from the tone of your remark that you xvere under the impression that the permit system was operative, as it was meant to be, and put into practical operation. I xvant to say that that is not the fact—that the permit system, as xve knoxv it at present, is to a large extent a dead-letter, and that by reason mainly of the opposition of the union officials to the granting of any permits. It is also due partly to the fact that the Chairmen of Conciliation Boards, to xvhom in some cases application has to be made for these permits, are not in such close touch xvith the employees and their xvork as it is necessary that those xvho grant these permits should be. The Federation is supporting strongly that Inspectors of Awards should have the poxver to issue these permits, because the Department's Inspectors are every day, and every hour of the day, practically coming into touch— and into close touch —xvith the workers and the xvork they are doing. In that xvay they get a knoxvledge of the capabilities and the limitations of xvorkers, and xve feel that they xvould give this system a chance that it has never had previously. They would consider the applications from all points of viexv, and we have sufficient faith in them, at any rate, to believe that they xvould give impartial decisions in connection xvith the applications. We do not want that the under-rate workers' clauses in the awards should be used unlimitedly, or that permits should be given promiscuously. That xvould operate just as hardly against the bulk of the employers as it would against the bulk of the workers. We do say, hoxvever, that these clauses were put into the awards to be made fair use of, and that has never been done. Turning now to the details of the Bill, 1 will just go through the items as I can, and I xvill place in your hands, when I have finished, this document xvhich shoxvs xvhat the Federation requires, without explanation, so it is necessary 1 should give reasons for what the Federation is asking for. Section 3, subsection (1), dealing with "Strikes and Lockouts": The first line reads "In this Act the term 'strike' means," &c. If that is left as printed the question of what is a strike or what is not a strike xvill be limited to the definition set doxvn in the clause. We ask, therefore, that the wording used in the New South Wales Industrial Disputes Act he inserted. We ask that the xvord "means" be deleted in line 15, and that after the word " strike " be inserted the xvords " (xvithout limiting the nature of its meaning) includes." That xvould make the first line in this clause read, "In this Act the term 'strike' (xvithout limiting the nature of its meaning) includes " so-and-so. We also ask that the same wording shall apply to lockouts, in section 4, xvhere the same alteration is necessary. We ask for an addition to section 4, suggesting that it be subsection (d). 14. A new clause?— Yes, to this effect: "This section shall not apply in the case of any employer or emplo}-ers finding it necessary to close his or their places of employment or any branch or branches of his or their business or businesses in consequence of a portion of his or their workers having gone out on strike." We think it is only fair to ask for some such protection as that to employers who may find themselves in difficulties when a strike has taken place. Section 5; You