THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19158, 15 November 1927, Page 11

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

TO THE EDITOR Or THE TBESS. Sir, —I think it unfortunate that yonr supersensitive correspondent, Mr S. Wilkinson, president of the Canterbury Employers' Association, should find in my simple letter anything to warrant visiting mc with the full measure of his wrath, I am unrepentant, and have no wish to qualify or withdraw one word in that letter. Mr Wilkinson would put me in the pillory because I had the" temerity to ask, in respectful and becoming language, for some information about the qualifications and standing of the gentleman holding the position of president of the Federation, regarding whose parts I must confess I had no knowledge. I asked this -question in view of the startling and apparently unjustifiable change of attitude of the Federation, to the funds of which I am, with others, called upon to make annual contributions. I, with others, feel that I have been wounded in the house of my friends, but after what has happened I am inclined to think they are pseudo-friends. To what seems in the eyes of Mr Wilkinson a serious offence—the use of a nom-de-plumc—l plead guilty, but I can give your correspondent this assurance: that it was not done with the object of sheltering as he gratuitously assumes, but modesty. Mr name is in the hands of the Editor? who has my full permission to supply it to anyone asking for it. However, I am deeply grateful to your correspondent for supplying such a eulogistic account of Mr "Weston's qualifications. I can assure him, however, that Mr Weston's sincerity was never questioned by me, and how Mr Wilkinson could read such an 'innuendo into my letter is quite beyond my comprehension. The. fact that Mr Weston holds the position of director of numerous companies does not impress me, however; neither does it prove that he possesses the wisdom of Solomon, for it not infrequently happens that when trouble comes along, directors of companies are not seldom shown to be the men who know the least concerning the inner working of the business. Mr Wilkinson ridicules my ignoranco when I stated that it was an offenco under certain conditions for an employer to employ a non-unionist. In this connexion I cannot do better than quote from the award by which I am bound. I think it proves beyond contradiction that Mr Wilkinson is, to use a common expression, "barking up the wrong tree"—it is evidence of loose thinking with a vengeance. The clause is as under:—

"Preference: C. 17 (a).—lf any employer shall hereafter engage any worker coming within the scope of this award who shall not be a member of the Union, and shall not become a member thereof within seven days after his engagement and re»main such member, the employer shall dismiss such worker from his or her service if required to do so by the Union, provided there is then a member of the Union equally qualified to perform the particular work to lie done and ready and willing to undertake the same. Now, I am sure that there are many others besides myself who will be glad of enlightenment as to how to deal with this plainly-worded clause. Mr Wilkinson, of course, may be able to solve, the enigma. If it is not enforceable by law, what object is there in putting it into the award? Will Mr Wilkinson tell us that it is a little system of duress introduced by the Arbitration Court to compel unionism by the process of instilling fear into the hearts of oppressed and timid employers? Will he teU us that there has never been a case in which an employer has been brought before the Court for a breach of this section?

' Mr Wilkinson evidently classes me among those who are blindly making the Arbitration Court a scapegoat for all the economic troubles of this country. I have said nothing that would justify this sweeping indictment. What I have said, and which I now repeat, is that the Court as at present constituted is one of the potent causes, and no one who is honest and possessed of anything but the meanest understanding can refute the assertion. Your correspondent is probably one of those who desire to pose as a friend of the working man, and-quite content that the Court should go blundering along, making fresh awards in tho most haphazard and irresponsible manner possible, quite regardless of the consequences, whilst ,next week we may hear of a deputation of those who think similarly interviewing the Minister, bemoaning their sad position, and beseeching the Government to increase the height of the tariff wall on some essential commodity, so that the manufacturers or vendors can clap on an additional 20 or 30 per cent. —tho people paying the, piper! I think Mr Wilkinson will admit that is the tendency to-day. No employer, however magnanimous he may be, can continue for long to pay out more than he takes in, and the unfortunate result of this is that while 100,000 _ or so unionists benefit, the great majority of the people are being crushed. I say this because they are unable to offer any effective resistance, although thousands have no means of increasing their sources of revenue. This is no imaginary picture. We see it before our eyes every day. It would be interesting to know for how long this valiant defender of our present arbitration system has believed it to be the most perfect instrument for the adjustment of wages that man could devise. I am not speaking without the book when I say that when he went up to the annual meeting of the Federal tion recently he was instructed by his executive to advocate one of two schemes, both -of which were considered superior to the one at present in operation. We are told that he carried out this duty with the becoming dignity of his position until the first salvo was fired, when he collapsed, slain by the chairman's thunder! It must indeed be a weak tree that would bend, much less collapse, before the gentle zephyr of Mr Weston, whose vagaries as president of the Employers' Federation have done much to reduce to nought the mana of that once powerful and influential body.—Yours, etc., DISAPPOINTED.