W. PBYOB. J

5

I—9a.

will be found to be utterly impracticable, unci will break down of their own weight in a very short time indeed. As I said at the outset, my federation wants provisions for Dominion awards, but these provisions must be simple, and as simple as possible. Our experience is this : that when you come to discuss Dominion awards, or awards covering more than one industrial district, you have an organization on each side, lhat is a state of things you frequently do not have in simply local disputes in regard n> the towns or cities, or even one industrial district. That has been my experience. In every case in connection with Dominion awards before the reference is filed to the Conciliation Council there are always conferences of the parties —generally several conferences. That is before any action is taken under the Act at all. Take, for instance, the woollen-mills dispute, which has now been referred to the Court both in Christchurch and Wellington. It started in Christchurch, and before any reference was tiled at all there were two conferences of the parties, when there was an amicable agreement arrived at that there should be a Dominion award. The arrangements, however, broke down somewhat, and the matter was then referred to the Conciliation Council. We practically confirmed before the Conciliation Council in Christchurch what had been agreed upon in the private conference, and before the Conciliation Council in Wellington we simply approved what had been done in Christchurch, and the matter has gone to the Arbitration Court. My point is this : that there is no necessity what ever for this cumbersome Conciliation Council machinery in connection with Dominion awards. Dominion awards are brought' about by reason of the fact that there is organization on both sides, and that induces the conferences between the parties. If those conferences fail, then all the Conciliation Councils can do is to pass them on to the Arbitration Court. We had another conference just recently in Wellington extending over nearly three days in connection with a typographical dispute —a joint conference consisting of Dominion representatives of the Typographical Association and master printers, who met and discussed the thing for two days and part of the third day, and then they were not able to arrive at an agreement. Now both sides realize that the case has to go before the Arbitration Court, and, of course, according to the present lav, we have to file disputes in each of the centres, and finally to iiave the matter put on to the Court. Our suggestion is that Dominion industrial disputes should be referred direct to the Court. You may, if you desire it, make a proviso that there should be a conference of the parties—that either a conference should be held or refused. It will be found that in very few cases they will be refused by either side. But there must be definite legislation to provide that all persons whom it is proposed to make parties to the dispute shall be cited and be served with full copies of the claims. The suggestion of the federation is that the Bill should provide that industrial associations should file references direct to the Court, citing all patties in the districts to which the award is to apply, and give the Court power to make an award applying to one or more industrial districts, after hearing such evidence as it deems necessary at such centre or centres in the Dominion as the parties may agree upon, or in default of such agreement as the Court may direct. The practical result of our suggestion would be a conference of representatives of the [Duties in some centre of the Dominion, and failing a settlement there, there would be an agreement in nine cases out of ten to hear the case before the Court in one centre. In the woollenmills dispute we have agreed that the dispute shall be heard at either Christchurch or Wellington, ;is the union desires. That is how it works out in practice even under the present law —and in the typographical dispute I expect within the next, day or two to arrange with the typographical federation in a similar way : You see, in connection with these industrial disputes there are wide and varied interests —interests of different classes of employers, interests of one part of the Dominion differing from another—and unless you have a hearing in one centre, or at the outside two centres, you get your evidence spread over and do not get your case put before any tribunal in concrete form. In my opinion, it was the power that the Conciliation Board had in connection with the Canterbury farm labourers' dispute to travel up and down and in and out, and to take all suits of evidence right through the Canterbury District, that caused so much trouble and expense. That Conciliation Board was engaged for months at that one dispute alone, and it cost a good many hundreds of pounds, and what was the result? The result was such a mixture, such a conglomeration of evidence for one side and the other, that neither the Board nor the Court could make head or tail of it. It cost hundreds of pounds for the typewriting alone. That is giving point to my argument : if that happened to a Conciliation Board in one district, how much more likely in a case like this, where it has as a field the whole of the Dominion to spread itself over. You arc offering a premium for that sort of thing. And after all that is done, in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred it will go to the Arbitration Court and be heard in one centre, so that the evidence can be put forward in a precise and useful form by each side and be summed up by the Court. Speaking as one with very large experience of Arbitration Court work, I am convinced that any other system but the one suggested has no chance of permanency or success. Section 6 of the Bill deals with what the parties have to do in connection with the filing of a recommendation by the Conciliation Council. It provides, first, for one month's notice to be given of disagreement with the recommendations. We agree that one month's notice should be given. It is desirable that there should be a limit, and that the party objecting should give notice of its disagreement, but we cannot possibly agree with the provision in subsection (2), that " any party that lias not within the time aforesaid signified his disagreement with the recommendation shall be deemed to have concurred in the same." It will be absolutely impossible in the great majority of cases —under present conditions, at any rate, and I take it that the Bill provides for present conditions to continue—for the employers in many disputes to ascertain what the recommendations are. In many of the disputes by far the greater proportion of those who are cited are hardly affected by the dispute at all, or any of the recommendations that might be made, because of the fact that they employ little or no labour. Now, the provision is that those who disagree should notify their disagreement, and in the event of their failing to do so it shall be taken that they concur in the same. Here I have the Wellington shearers' award. On this list