B. J OAEEY.

5

T Q R

7 I understand that both your union and the Trades and Labour Council are in favour of the whole of this Bill with the exception of clause 7 ?—Yes, we are in favour of the Bill with the exception of clause 7, which we think, if passed as it stands, will defeat the half-holiday now enjoyed. 8. Mr McLaren.] In regard to the conflict between the award and the Act, you are well acquainted with the Act ?—Yes. 9. And you know there is a section of the Act that specifies in regard to the term or currency of the award?— Yes, a maximum of three years. 10. Do I understand that under that clause in your award which you quoted the Court reserves to itself the power to annul the whole of the provisions of the award on legislation being passed?—lt does not reserve it; it makes it a provision of the award—it is mandatory The position is that if this Bill were passed as it stands now we should get the benefits of the Bill— we should get sixty and fifty-six hours, but we should get nothing else. We should have no wages conditions regulated, or- any other conditions regulated, and we should have no chance of remedying it until the time for which the award had been made had expired. Section 14 of our award says so. 11 That clause in the award, then, in its operation, will not merely annul the matters which the Legislature had dealt with so far as they are contained in the award, but other provisions as well? —It annuls the Arbitration Act so far as the Wellington union is concerned—it annuls the award and the Arbitration Act. 12 By saying that it annuls the Act you mean that it withdraws from the workers the right of getting any of the provisions of protection affecting even other matters that the Legislature has not dealt with? —I have drawn the attention of Mr Scott, the employers' representative on the Arbitration Court, to this clause, and he would like to think it is not so drastic as it seems or as it is framed, and he agrees with me that it annuls the award and the Arbitration Act. It says, On any such change being made, all the foregoing provisions of this award shall cease to operate, and thereafter during the term of this award the following provisions shall be in force," &c. Instead of the provisions of the award which are now operating, there shall be only one provision in force, and that provision shall be freedom of contract, and that would exist till August, 1912 13. Mr Ijuke.] Do you not think that possibly the Judge had in his mind that the Shops and Offices new Act may be so wrapped up with amendments that it would simply make your present award unworkable?—lf that is all that was in his mind, why not give us the privilege of going again for a fresh award in the event of legislation 14. Would not that be the most common-sense way of doing it? If the new conditions of Die Shops and Offices' Act conflict with the award, would it not be politic on your side to go and ask for a new award, providing that the matter you have introduced this morning is a true interpretation ?—So far as our organizations are concerned, we should be content for the Bill to provide that all awards shall now cease to operate, and every union should be entitled to go for a fresh award on the basis of the legislation just passed. 15. In other words, you would want the present award to run its full time, and any additional matter that may be contained in any subsequent Act should be embodied in that award? —No, I did not say that. If the fear is that legislation would override the provisions of the award, I should be content, so as to do away with that danger, that the Bill should state explicitly that all awards affecting this employment shall be null and void, and the unions concerned shall there and then, after the passing of this Act, ask for fresh awards making provision for the conditions that are now provided for in the Act. 16. Would not that be intrenching upon the Arbitration Act? —No, it would not be intrenching upon the Arbitration Act, but it would be making the awards of the Court which were made on a different basis to this null and void, and giving the parties concerned the opportunity of bringing them into line with the Act that might be passed. 17 It to me that you have either to go and ask for a new award to embody whatever may be imposed in the way of new conditions by the House this session, or you have got to embody by process of law those conditions without going for a new award? —We are content to accept either position, but we do resent the Court saying- that because Parliament makes conditions affecting the employment of hotel-workers we shall be debarred from availing ourselves of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I would like to say this: that the Arbitration Court has only interfered in connection with the hotel and restaurant keepers' trade in the four centres. It only affects, roughly, perhaps four or five thousand in the four centres—namely, Auckland, Dunedin, Wellington, and Christchurch. In all other parts of New Zealand, in all other towns and villages, there are no conditions at all governing the employment of hotel and restaurant workers excepting the Shops and Offices Act, which provides for fifty-two hours for one section—restaurant assistants only, and gives hotel-workers the half-holiday 18. Mr Fraser ] I understood you to say that you did believe in the Arbitration. Act?— Speaking for the Council and my union, we approve of the Arbitration Act. We have complained against its administration, and complained against what we believe to be the unconscious bias of the existing President of the Court. 19 If every award given by the Arbitration Court is subject to legislative amendment, how long do you think the Arbitration Act would remain on the statute-book?—lf the Arbitration Court is to be given the final power of making the conditions affecting the industry, then there would be no need for Parliament to legislate at all, we might as well have an industrial dictator who would claim the power to govern the conditions of workers; there would be no necessity for any factory Act. J a a 2 °j Hf DOt this the ori g inal idea of the Arbitration Court that it should hear evidence adduced before it, so that it could have a more correct view as to what would suit both the employer