INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DIRECT ACTION

Chronicle (Levin), 14 January 1947, Page 6

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DIRECT ACTION

Situation . in australia . ■ — u. Diroct bearings on the current industrial situation in Kew Zealand can be •seen in cpmment by tlie Employers' Revievv on the Australian system of industrial conciliation and arbitration. The Revievv, which is the official organ of the Employers' Federation of Kew | South Wales, says: — The Australian system of industrial ■ conciliation and arbitration introduced ' a new aspect of employer and emplovee relations. It was priniarily designed to regulate them by -bringing thein within the concepts of law and order. The system eontemplated that conciliation, with arbitration in the background, would replace tlie' crude and barbarous process of strilce and lock-out. It was intended to displace econoinic "'force and, as f'ar as any system could do so, to enforce peace betweeu the parties in industry. Iu spite of all its alleged impcrfectiohs, tlie system had served Australia well. Disregard of Decisions. Recent events, however, justify concern regarding tlie survival of such a system, which, f'ar from ensuring industrial peace, is stated by some to be responsible for inany if not all of our industrial upheavals. There has, for example, beeu eoiuplete and reckless disregard of the decisions of established tribunals and a recourse to direct action without any fear of penalties for defiance of tlie law. It ean truly be said that the system is reeling under this impact. The question which concerns employers and workers alike is — will it break? It is patently useless for trade unions to adopt a policy of direct action and complain if employers do likevvise. It would be just as absurd for employers to adopt sueli a policy and expect the trade unions to abide by conciliation and arbitration. If the law of reason is to be replaced by that of transieiit economic force, it is well to remember that such a weapon will be available first to oue side ai*d then to the other. The iinportant thing to bear in mind is that it is a' method without stability and must in the long run react on the community. We may well aslc, "Is' tlie present defiance of industrial tribunals deliberately calculated to destroy them?" If it be so, those responsible for this policy ignore the successive and lasting benefits that the workers have obtained through the Oourts in comparison with expedient gains by direct action. Undermining of Authority. Many reasons have been advanced for the deliberate by-passing of tribunals. Experience recently has' shovvn that the saying "The wheel that squealts the most gets the most grease" still holds good. It has not been unusual for some employers to concede demands under threat of direct action. There has been'a growing belief that "squealcing wheels" ensure an early hearing by tribunals. There has been an apparent disinclination by Governments to .enforce observanee of the i industrial law. All these iwfhiences l have temled to uadergmie t.ge authoritj

■ of tribunals. If this attitude be allowed to grow the law of reasoivvinust be : engulfed by the law of force.'g' Which system is to prevail cannot be i solved only by conferences betw.een emj ployers and workers. Governmqnts must • niake up their minds to enfoTce ,.,the industrial law. They ean best^o iLby ; telling both parties that a&cess ' to - industrial arbitration implies accepti ance of that prineiple, and that the law . will be enfoiced without fear or favour > against those wlio hold'up and exploit i a loug-suffering eonimunity- &4S- jeobai'- • dise national prosperity0