1.—9.

40

[c. teegear.

Times of what was stated in the Arbitration Court this last month with regard to these cases. The particular case being heard was that of the Sailmakers' Union. Mr. Halley, who is Inspector of Factories and Awards in Dunedin, said," The Unions did not always make the complaints, as it often happens that the employers made use of the Department in this direction also." That means that if an employer is brought up for a breach or is asked for an explanation, he often says " Why come to me when Mr. Jones is doing a great deal worse than I am ? " and it is on such a statement as this that the Inspector makes use of the allegation with regard to Jones made by the employer, and takes action. Mr. Halley proceeds, " As far as the number of cases coming before the Court were concerned, they by no means indicated the number of complaints made. As an indication of how careful he was in this matter, since he had held the office of an Inspector in Dunedin, probably three hundred alleged complaints had been investigated by the local officials. Of these, only fifty had been brought before the Court." If Mr. Young considers that action should have been taken in the three hundred complaints made to one Inspector, well, I should say it must be a matter of opinion with him, because I cannot conceive that the position is given to T an|lnspector , 'of Factories merely to bring forward every petty or frivolous complaint. My instructions to Inspectors have been to do exactly as in breaches of the Factory Act —namely, to make inquiries, and bring such cases as the Inspectors thought were justifiable. I would like to read what the President of the Arbitration Court said on the occasion when Mr. Halley stated that he had had three hundred complaints, and only prosecuted in fifty cases. His Honour, Mr. Justice Chapman, said, " The Court wished to say this : Now that the Inspectors were acting in these matters —they were capable to deal with matters of this sort —the Court expected them to investigate charges brought by unions, evidence of which was laid before them. They expected them to investigate these charges, and, in the first instance, decide whether they were proper cases to be brought before the Court. It was still open to unions to bring their own cases into Court; but when a union brought a case the Court would have to consider for what reason it was done, seeing that the Inspectors were available to investigate proper charges and bring them before the Court. There had been a certain amount of irritation in the past, and it was evident that it was for the purpose of allaying that irritation that Parliament decided that these cases should be undertaken by Inspectors. The Court wished it to be understood that they expected, in the first instance, that these cases would be investigated, and, if necessary, brought by the Inspectors." That is the opinion of the President of the Arbitration Court, and in a letter he wrote to me, dated the 13th August, 1904—1 have made an extract from it to bring it before the Committee— he says, " Since the Inspectors have got to work, a large number of cases of breaches have been brought, but I am quite satisfied that this is only temporary, and now that the whole subject is regulated by responsible Inspectors, employers will, I feel sure, after the present rush of business, commence regularly to co-operate with the Inspectors and obey the awards. This was the experience in connection with the Shop-hours Acts, and it will be repeated." The idea of the Court is that so long as unions are able to bring cases as they please, it will be a constant source of irritation, while previous investigation by an Inspector, and a refusal to bring frivolous cases would be to the advantage of the Court and advantage to the country. I have here the annual report of my Department, in which is given a detailed account of all the cases brought last year, those in which convictions have been obtained, and those which were dismissed. I have very little evidence to give more than to say that when Mr. Young was pressed to name some of the cases in which the Inspector failed in his duty, he said he could not lay his hand on any at the moment, but knew there was one in the Lower Hutt. I made inquiry, and found it was the case of a lorry-carter. You will remember that by the decision of Mr. Justice Chapman only those cited in an award could be proceeded against for a breach. This carter was not obeying the award, and as he was not cited, we could not bring the case forward. That was the only case that Mr. Young could mention ; but, on the other hand, I could bring cases forward in which our Inspectors have over and over again refused to lay informations which, in their opinion, were frivolous. The Hairdressers' Assistants' Union wished us to prosecute a hairdresser who had infringed the award on the Prince of Wales's birthday, or some such holiday, by employing a boy after half-past 9 in the morning, after which he ought not to have had any of his hands employed. The secretary of the union went and told him he was breaking the award, and he immediately sent the boy home ; and the matter ended there, except that the secretary wished to have the hairdresser prosecuted. On investigating the case, the hairdresser said he did not know that the boy was working against the award, as he was not aware that that particular day was named in the award, but on finding out that it was he immediately sent the boy home. I thought that was a frivolous case, so did not prosecute, and that is the kind of thing which is often represented to us. Where there is no intention of breaking the law Ido not wish the time of the Arbitration Court to be taken up with absolutely frivolous cases. I only present to the Committee my view of the matter, that if it is thought necessary that the Inspector of Factories as Inspector of Awards shall bring forward every case in which information is given to him, I would ask, with the Minister, that the Inspector of Factories be relieved from the office, because it is not proper that an official should bring forward cases of which he disapproves. James Mackay, examined. (No. 19.) 36. The Chairman] What is your position ?—Chief Clerk of the Labour Department and Deputy Chief Inspector. Ido not know that I can add very much to what Mr. Tregear has said, except to say that being the officer who does a great deal of the practical work of the Department I am brought largely into contact with the secretaries of unions, consequently with Mr. Young, "in reference to bringing cases into Court." Some time ago Mr. Young wanted us to take a case into Court, which we" were quite agreeable to do, but he wished to argue the case for himself, and I said that that could not be done. 37. Mr. Lethbridge] Who is Mr. Young ? —Mr. Young is secretary of the Seamen's Union. I said that if we took the case up we would argue it through our Inspector or a solicitor. He was quite