REVISION NEEDED

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19146, 1 November 1927, Page 8

REVISION NEEDED

ARBITRATION SYSTEM. PREFERENCE SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. At its session on Friday the annual cuuferenec of the Associated' Chambers of Commerce appointed a committee to bring down a remit dealing with the Arbitration Act. Yesterday it submitted the following remit, which was adopted, after a brief discussion in committee:—

"This conference commends the Government for having introduced legislation designed to improvo the constitution of the Arbitration Court and the functioning of the arbitration system, and resolves that a considered statement of the views of the conference on these matters be forwarded to the Government." The appended statement read as follows:—

Several Chambers have conducted special investigation into the constitution, functions, and effects of the arbitration system. In particular it has been stated:

(a) That the system was good while wages and prices were rising, but now that the tide has turned it does nol operate to general benefit. . (b) The system limits production; (c) it in creases costs; (d) it hampers progress; (c) it stifles initiative; (f) it promotes unemployment; (g) there is too great rigidity in the fixation and interpretation of conditions governing employment; (h) the welfare of the general public is disregarded.

Replies to Questionnaire. The Associated Chambers of Commerce of jNiew" Zealand recently issued a questionnaire. One thousand were issued to manufacturers, leaders in industry and public life, merchants, etc. Of tho 200 replies received, 57 per cent, considered Arbitration Court awards •responsible for the economic disabilities of high overhead cost of production and for insufficient production; 7 per cent, considered these awards partly responsible; 13 per cent.- join in other causes as responsible; 15 per cent, gave a direct negative t" this. Tho balance did not reply fc, this question. Seventyseven per cent, considered tho Court's power to impose regulations on industry should be restricted; 5 per cent, stated that the powers should be revised; 7 per cent, did not consider the Court's power should be restricted. The balance did not reply to this question. Fifty-nine per cent, considered the Court's awards were in some ways responsible for unemployment; 23 per cent, say the awards were not responsible; 12 per cent, gave a qualified negative. The balance did not reply. Twenty-seven per cent, considered that the Court should be abolished; 44 per cent, considered that its functions and constitution should be revised; 26 per cent, considered that the Court should not be abo-lished. The balance did not reply. Forty-two per cent, considered that the responsibility for lack of adjustment between the price of primary and secondary products was due to the lixation of wages by the Arbitration Court; 23 per cent, gave a qualified aCrmative to this; 16 per cent, a direct negative to this; and 7 per cent, a qualified negative. The balance did not reply. Seventy-two per cent, disagreed with the principle of preference to unionists; 15 per cent, agreed with the principle; 6 per cent, a qualified disagreement; 5 per cent, a qualified agreement; and the balance did not reply. Recommendations for Government. The following recommendations were made by the committee:—(a) The Arbitration Court should be continued if its functions and constitution are revised; (b) the principles enunciated in the Amendment Bill providing for payment on piece-work should be adopted; (e) we do not disagree with a basic subsistence wage, but this should be a minimum which every worker could increase by effort; (d) payment should generally be by results, and should be based on the value and volume of output; (e) Wages should not be based on sueh artificial conditions as the size of a man's family, or the pre-war cost of living, but must be based on the economic position of the Dominion as a whole, the state of the primary producers and the interests of the consumer; (f) due regard mustbe given to tho economic fallacy of attempting to maintain wages at an unduly high level under protection; (g) preference to unionists, should be abolished; (h) there should be less restriction of conditions under which industry may be carried on, and conditions in awards should be interpreted reasonably, not with cast-iron rigidity; (i) it should he made a penal offence for any person to coerce or cajole any worker to restrict his output. In order to give full effect to the recommendations, it is further recom-

mended: That the Court be constituted of 3 permanent members, viz. 2 judges of the Supreme Court and 1 Economist of note; the latter particularly to safeguard the interests of the general public. Against Assessors. The conference disapproves the appointment of assessors, considering that decision should be the opinion of a majority of the above three permanent members of the Court, acting purely in a judicial capacity.. Pull opportunity should, of course, be given, as now, for all parties affected to make representations through their own representatives, or counsel, or through other medium. Employers should be advised and must be induced to adopt improved methods and institute more efficient administration, in order to do their full part in the economic readjustment now facing the Dominion. The conference is not antagonistic to trades unionism, but favours its legitimate existence, and operations; it has not and will not oppose increase in money wages when justifiable; it nevertheless unequivocally affirms the prin-' ciple that all movements in wages, costs, and prices must be directed toward the increase of real wages, and reduction of the cost of living.

EMPLOYERS' OPPOSITION. At its meeting last evening the executive of the Canterbury Employers' Association decided to support the attitude of, the Advisory Board of the New Zealand Employers' Federation in opposing the Government's proposals with regard to the constitution of the Arbitration Court as set out in the Amendment Bill now before Parliament.