I.—9a.

18

,W. PRYOR.

of preventing the Magistrate dismissing the charge if the breach is found to be trivial or excusable. Section 16 of the Amendment Act of 1908 reacts as follows: "In any such action the Magistrate may give judgment for the total amount claimed, or any greater or less amount as he thinks fit (not exceeding in respect of any one breach the maximum penalty hereinbefore prescribed), or, if he is of opinion that the breach proved against the defendant is trivial or excusable, the action may bo dismissed, and in any ease he may give such judgment as tei costs as he thinks lit," The words proposed to be struck out are " or, if he is of opinion that the breach proved against the' defendant is trivial or excusable, the action may be dismissed, and in any case he may give such judgment as to exists as ho thinks fit." There can be only one. reason, for asking for an amendment of this sort, and that is so that unions may have an opportunity for persecuting employers in the same manner as used to take place before this section was put in. There is only erne reason for it. There should be no reasonable objection to giving the Magistrate power to dismiss a, charge which is trivial or and there should be no reasonable objection to the Court having power to grant costs. Previous to this amendment employers we're persecuted by a.ctions being brought by labour unions from one enel of the Dominion to the other. The labour unions could bring these actions practically without cost anel without any responsibility ; and the result was that the Courts were swamped with actions for breaches of agreements and breaches of awards, and the employers all over New Zealand were put into a position of having to defend these; actions. The' whole matter was very fully threshed out at the time". The Hon. J. A. Millar was then Minister of Labour, and as a result of the evidence which was available at that time this provision was put in the Act. We cannot understand, any other reason for wishing this section amended than the one I have put forward, and I say confidently that that is the reason. The result of this section has bee;n that hundreds of pounds, perhaps thousands, have been savee) to the employers. Hundreds of cases wesre taken by the labour unions after the officials of the' Labour Department had inquired into them, anel they were' dismissed ; anel the employers we're put to the expense of defending the actions, and they could not secure costs against the parties bringing the charges. The employers were put to the expense of engaging counsel and that sort of thing, besides the waste of time. Surely it is a fair thing to asic that employers should be> protected against persecution of this sort, because it is nothing else. Since' this section was passexl fewer cases have been brought by trades-unions, and they have a sense of responsibility in connection with those they do take, because they know that even if there may be> a technical breach -even with the greatest care possible an employer may commit a technical breach in connection 1 with matters which may not be under his control if the breach is trivial or excusable the case will be dismissed anel ceists may be given against them. An employer should not be punisheel for that sort of thing. Since this section was put in—that is to say, since the Court has had power to grant costs against the- either party the number of cases have been very much less ; and Ido not think anybody can say that in this country, so far as the employers are concerned, the' Act is not carried out by the Labour Department impartially. Tho next clause in the Bill is clause 5, which reads as follows : " Subsection eight of section thirty-five of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, is hereby amended by deleting the words ' other than the making of a recommendation.' ' That section of the Act which it is proposed to amend prevents the Conciliation Commissioner from having a vote> in anything dealing with the Conciliation Council's recommendations. Now, if tin' promoters of this Bill desire to kill ponciliation in connection with the operation of the Arbitration Court, or to kill the effectiveness and usefulness of the Conciliation Councils, they could not put in a better clause' than (hat. We do not very much care;—as a matter of fact, the' employers as a whole do not very much care —whether they put in this clause; eir not. But if this clause goes in, what is going to happen is that you are going to turn the' Conciliation Commissioner into an arbitrator. Ho will, not be a conciliator at all. That would be the last of it. There cannot be any other result. And you will have two Arbitration Courts. Now, if there; is one' thing more' than, another which makes for success in connection, with the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act it is the Conciliation Councils. Thoy.have had a very considerable degree of success in securing a settlement of disputes. This has been the case right throughout the' Dominion, and it is chiefly due to the fact that the; Conciliation Commissioners have not got a vote. Conciliation Councils have been a success mainly because the Commissioners have had to get both sides to agree. If the Commissioner has a vote it will result in giving offence; to either one side' or the other, anel instead of, as at present, in nine cases out of fen, recommendations being accepted, and not having to be referred to the Arbitration Court except for ratification, it will be the other way about to a great extent, and whichever side the Commissioner's decision is against will be to that extent prejudiced before the Arbitration Court. There is a good deal of feeling generally in connection with these cases, and if the Commissioner has a vote and dissatisfies either one side or the other, then the case will be carried on by the dissatisfied party to the; Arbitration Court, whereas otherwise it would probably be settled without this being necessary. On. the other hand, if you allow the Commissioner to remain simply a, conciliator, anel he uses his judgment and his persuasive powers, each side will probably give way and be inclined to come to terms, with the result that the dispute is settled through the Conciliation Council, without having to bo taken on to the Arbitration Court, It is very hard to understand a proposal of this sort unless, as I think, the: promoters of the Bill are out definitely to kill the whole thing. If they are out for that purpose they are going the right way about it. Now, with reference to clause 6 : in this clause they are pressing to reduce the time within which a, Conciliation Council must report to the Clerk of Awards. Subsection (1) of section 42 of the Amendment Act of 1908 prescribes an interval of not less than one month or more than two months before the Conciliation Commissioner reports to the Clerk of Awards. The proposal in the Bill is to alter " one month "to " three days," and " two months "to " one week." That, is another thing that will kill conciliation in this country. Very often in difficult cases the best weirk done by the Commissioner is after the preliminary sittings of the Conciliation Council. Very often in connection with such case's there is a, considerable amount of feeling with regard to the matters in dispute, and those who have had experience of Conciliation Councils know that it is good business to Jet the parties " blerw off steam." That is the first element in connection with a, settlement. Now, you can quite realize that in the more important case's, where there are distinct differences between the parties, the Commissioner himself gets little' intuition as to what are the matters in dispute at the preliminary sittings, and