1.—9.

Mli. FIELD.

23

ment. We believe that the only effective and fair way of doing it is to send to all the persons or firms who are to be made parties to the dispute a citation of a personal character through the mail. We therefore have to object to (lie whole provision in section A. Then, with regard to clause 15, subsections (I) and (2): As we understand the clause, subsection (I) is to take the place of the provisions referred to in subsection (2), which provisions it is proposed I<> delete. The provisions in subsection (2) are to be struck out, and subsection (1) is lo lake I lie place of the provisions now on the statute-book. Well, one of the subsections that it is proposed to delete provides that the award shall state the original parties on whom it is binding. In (lie proposed new clause there is no such provision, and if these sections are repealed and the new clause is substituted there will be no provision that the award shall state the original parlies on whom it is binding. We believe it is still desirable that the award should state the parties on whom it is binding. If, Inter on, other parties were added there would be no difficulty in the Court attaching such parties and making an announcement through the medium of the Labour Journal, and in other ways, of such attachment. We think, therefore, that the present provision should be continued, and that the award should state the original parties on whom it is binding. Then, we ask the Committee to add a few words lo paragraph (I) of clause B. The words we wish to see added are these: " Provided that every employer shall have an opportunity of being heard by the Court before being bound to observe (he award." There would be no such provision unless it were expressly stipulated, and we want to guarantee that before an employer is brought under the operation of an award he shall have an opportunity of stating his case. I think f need not dwell further on that : I hope 1 have made the point clear. Now, with regard to clause C: Subsection (1) of the clause is intended, we believe, as a substitute for the clause proposed to be repealed by subsection (2). There, again, a phrase is proposed to be dropped out by the repeal of the clause which we desire to see retained. The portion of the section i>l that would be dropped out provides that the order referred to in subsection (1) shall only be made on the application of a party to the award. We believe that that should still stand good. If (he proposal were carried there would be no provision that the machinery of the Court could only be set in motion by parties who were interested. There would be the opportunity and the option for the Court to initiate and to carry on action on its own account, and we do not think that is desirable. We believe that the order referred to in clause C —" The Court in its award, or by order made at any time," <Src. —we believe tha.t should only be made on the application of a party to the award. Then, w object to the maximum penalty proposed to be provided, the maximum penalty being, as proposed, £500. We suggest that the penalty be .£lOO. Then, with regard to the proviso to subsection (1) of clause 0-—" Provided that in the case of a breach committed by any individual worker the penalty shall not exceed ten pounds " —we wish to see this made applicable to the em ployer also, and we ask the Committee to include the words "or employer." If our suggestion were incorporated the paragraph would read, " Provided that in the ease of a breach committed by any individual worker or employer the penally shall not exceed ten pounds." We believe that these two should be on the same level, and if it is not possible to recover from the worker a penalty of more than £10, then it should not be possible to recover from the employer a penalty of any larger sum—if £10 is to be the limit recoverable from the worker it should be the limit recoverable from the individual employer. Now, as to section D: We have had a very strong protest from all over the colony in respect to fines, penalties, and so on being used according to the discretion of the Judge, and being awarded as he may think well. We think it is fitting, in connection with this clause, to urge that all fines and penalties should be paid into the Public Account and become part of the Consolidated Fund of the colony. 1 think that exhausts our reference's to the proposed amendments on the large sheet. With regard to the smaller sheet, we object to the whole of the provisions on it. As we understand them, they are designed to perpetuate Conciliation Boards —they are intended to widen the functions of Conciliation Boards and give them a better status than they now have. We want to say very plainly, and as strongly as language will allow us, that we have no confidence whatever in the Conciliation Boards of the colony. Employers have had a good deal of experience of them, and have had that experience right throughout New Zealand, and there is only one opinion among the employers in respect to Conciliation Boards, and that opinion is that (hey should be wiped out entirely. We have no confidence in them whatever, and any provisions that it is proposed to make by means of which they would be perpetuated and established and their functions widened, we very strongly protest against. We would point out that on the basis of ascertained experience the Legislature itself in 1901 passed an amending Act which provided for the carrying of cases forward to the Arbitration Court. This was a recognition by the Legislature of the experience of employers and, I think, of workmen alike, that the Conciliation Boards were a failure. ■ We believe that further experience has justified the wisdom of Parliament in passing that legislation in 100], and we strongly oppose any proposal which would perpetuate the existence of Conciliation Boards. Tn clauses C and D the same principle is recognised- the continuation of the Conciliation Boards and an increased difficulty is proposed to be placed in the way of people carrying eases to the Arbitration Court, because under clause D a deposit would have to be provided by any party that wished to carry a case to the Arbitration Court. We do not think any such provision should be allowed to pass. We believe it would be entirely unfair —that it would rather tend to prevent cases going forward to the Court, and would so tend to the strengthening and continuance of Conciliation Boards. Section D provides for the striking-out of section 21 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act of 1901, a section which gives to parties power to go to the Court. It is proposed by this suggested amendment to take away those powers, so that if the amendment were carried we should not have the option of going to the Arbitration Court direct. We do not think that option should be taken away. We believe that that right should be continued, and that, it should be made even more perfect and more workable than it now is. We have a suggestion to make in regard to section 21 of the Act, which it is proposed to repeal. This section reads.