1.—9

24

[me. field.

" Either party to an industrial dispute which has been referred to a Board of Conciliation may, previous to the hearing of such dispute by the Board, file with the Clerk an application in writing requiring the dispute to be referred to the Court of Arbitration," and so on. The words we want to fix attention upon are the two first words, "Either party." Now, according to the construction of that section, and according to the interpretation that has been placed upon it since, it is the whole of a party on whom this right is conferred. " Either party " : There are two parties before the Court; there are the employers on the one hand and there is the union on the other hand. These constitute the two parties. You will see the position is this, that whilst the union can avail itself of that provision and carr}' a case forward to the Arbitration Court direct, the employers cannot do so unless the whole of them agree to it. Now, it may happen that there are two or three hundred employers, and it maj- be almost impossible to get them all to agree —it may not be possible to even reach them, because these disputes are in some cases spread over the whole of a provincial district. We, therefore, submit that the right which is conferred upon the workers should be conferred also, in a workable fashion, on the employers. But we do not want to see the word "Any" put in in place of " Either " at the beginning of the clause, for this reason: if " Any party " was to be able to take a case direct to the Court, then, though the great bulk of the employers and the union did not want to avail themselves of the privilege, a small minority — one, or two, or three of the parties -might set the whole machinery in motion. So we do not suggest that "Any" should be inserted, but we do desire that the employer shall have conferred upon him in a reasonable fashion the right that is now conferred upon a union, it being a solid unit. What we have to suggest is, that the words " Either party "be struck out and these words be inserted instead, " Any industrial union which is a party, or a majority of the employers who are parties to an industrial dispute," &o. ; thus providing that an industrial union ma}- take action and that a majority of the employers who are cited may take action. We believe that that provision would be perfectly fair and reasonable, and that if the power to go direct to the Court is to be conferred at all, it should be conferred upon a majority of the employers who are parties to a dispute. We suggest that as a workable way of realising the end aimed at in this particular clause. Tdo not think there is anything more I wish to say now, except this, that I will hand in copies of these proposed amendments of ours. I have two or three copies here. [Produced ] Charles Cathie examined. (No. 12.) 1. The Chairman] What are you, Mr. Cathie? —A clothing-manufacturer. 2. You are a member of the Employers' Association? —Yes; a member of the Employers' Association, Wellington. 3. Will you proceed, please? -I have only to indorse what Mr. Field has stated on one or two points. Subsection (1) of clause Aof the first lot of proposed amendments would, to be effective, or even partly effective require that advertisements should be inserted in every newspaper in the colony, seeing that the employers are federated throughout Hie colony. Even then, an employer does not read all the advertisements in a newspaper. Many times we miss important advertisements, because our minds are taken up with other things. It is only when a personal citation is placed before us that our attention is forcibly called to the matter. We think it would be practically impossible to have every person engaged in an industry duly notified by newspaper advertisement. 4. Mr. Laurenson] What do you suggest? —Personal citation, as Mr. Field has suggested, or citation through the post —the same as what we are accustomed to at present. Passing on to section C, we certainly think that a penalty of £500 that might be imposed on any one employer might become an instrument of oppression in the hands of parties, never intended, probably, in the original Act, But we have to look to the future and the contingencies that might arise. We think that a limited maximum penalty of £100 should answer all requirements, and also that any individual employer belonging to an association should not be mulcted in a larger sum than £10 —as is proposed in the case of an individual worker —so that if a penalty has to be inflicted on an association it will be divided. I would point out that in some of our associations of employers now connected specially with individual trades there may be only half a dozen employers interested in a particular dispute, and a penalty of £400 or £500 would be a heavy one when divided amongst only half a dozen. It would not be felt to the same extent if an association con sisted of one or two hundred employers, but in the case of small associations it might be disastrous. That is one reason why we ask that the penalty should not exceed £10 against any individual employer. I also wish to confirm what Mr. Field has said about our objection to the strengthening of the Conciliation Boards. They have not justified their existence to the people of the colony, either workers or employers. We think there is no reason why clauses should be inserted into the Act that would tend to strengthen the Boards in future, by giving them work to do and compelling people to go before them who have no confidence in them, and also by repealing section 21 of the Act of 1901, and thus preventing us from going in the first instance to the Arbitration Court, We think that we need these safeguards if we are to hold our own in the industrial affairs of the colony. William Cable made a statement. (No. 13.) Mr. Gable: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, —I ju«t wish to say, regarding these three proposed new clauses in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, that what is proposed to be done will be altogether unsatisfactory to the employers. We have a right to expect personal citation. It seems unfair that a mere newspaper advertisement should be sufficient service of notice to us to appear at the Arbitration Court. There are dozens of different ways in which an employer might never hear of or see the advertisement. We simply want that matter left as it is—that citation should be through the post and by registered letter. I think that it does not require any