ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19154, 10 November 1927, Page 16

ARBITRATION COURT.

TO THE EDITOB OT THS PBfcSS. Sir,—Your articles appearing from time to time, along with Professor Tocker - s articles showing the adverse cperations of Arbitration Court decisions, especially as they affect the primary producers of this T>ominion. deserve the thanks of the people in general. If I am in order, I should like to refer to the evidence of Mr "\V. J. Poison, before the Parliamentary Labour Bills Committee as reported in vour last Friday's issue (November 4th). One may conclude from his statements that Mr Poison is against those amendments in the new Bill giving relief to the farmers by its proposed exemptions. Why this topsyturvevdom on the part of W. J. Polscn? Some three or four yeare ago Mr Poison and other farmers paid a visit to the South Island and gave addresses to the Farmers' Unions, chiefly on the money question. I happened to be at one of the meetings he addressed, and the question of the Arbitration Court cropped up, and a question was put to him about preference to unionists. His reply was, in substance: Bother the Court. He would like to see it abolished. The last statement was emphatic. If Mr Polson requires my name, you can, give him my address.—Yours, etc., A.B. November 7th.

TO TH» BDITOB 0# Tffl FSSSI. Sir, —One is tempted to wonder whether the agitation against the proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act is genuine. The deputation arranged by the Alliance of Labour included representatives of the Miners' Unions, and the miners liave always consistently and persistently rejected the Arbitration Act. They have never made agreement under that Act if they could possibly avoid it. If the Act is to be retained, I think the old constitution oi the Court is much better than the proposed new one. Possibly the Court might be kept in closer touch with the affairs of the different industries if it were made compulsory for assessors for each side to be appointed in every dispute, in addition to the permanent assessors. Preference to unionists should undoubtedly bo abolished, as it places too much power in the hands of the union leaders. It practicallv enables them tf< force all workers to Join the unions if they wish to obtain employment. I think it would be much better if the attraction to the unions was offered by the unions establishing benefit funds and other privileges for their members. Tt is ratner a misnomer to call th© present system a compulsory one. If we are to have really compulsory arbi- ' tration, why not insist that all unions should register under the Arbitration' Act and that all agreements made bv such unions should be registered under ] the Act? Jn fact, one might go furthem and insist that all agreements made between an employer and any group of workers should *be registered under the Act. If some such method was adopted, the system would become really compulsory whereas at present it is nothing of the sort. f am inclined to think that we would be better without the Arbitration Act, which is too artificial in its operations. —Yours, etc., WATCHMAN. '