XN000022-1972-03-29 — Page 66

66

Wednesday, March 29, 1972

"This Bill will not replace the conciliation machinery of the Labour

Department which will continue to play as important a part in the settlement

of disputes between employers and workers as it does now,

" he added.

Referring to the second amendment, the Attorney General said the only

substantial difference was that the Commissioner might only adjourn a hearing

if all parties to the claim had agreed to the adjournment for the purpose of

conciliation.

Moving another amendment to the Bill, the Attorney General said there

was some objection to the previous provision for penal costs to be awarded

against a claimant. It was thought that this should be removed as it might

constitute a deterrent even to those with legitimate claims to pursue.

Adequate Powers

Mr. Roberts said that the present Bill "does not confer adequate powers

on the Tribunal to deal with insulting behaviour, failure to comply with orders

to appear before the Tribunal or to produce documents or with a refusal to comply

with lawful requests by the tribunal officers or with wilful obstruction of them."

He proposed that three new clauses dealing with these matters be inserted into the

Bill.

Referring to Clause 41 which makes it an offence to induce a witness or

party not to give evidence in a hearing before the Tribunal, the Attorney General

said: "This clause seeks to ensure that a party to a claim and a witness shall be

protected against pressure."

"The clause is not intended to prevent a trade union from assisting a

worker in his dealings with his employers, so long as this activity does not

amount to an attempt to prevent a party or witness giving evidence to the Tribunal."

/67