ARBITRATION LAW.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 209, 28 May 1908, Page 7

ARBITRATION LAW.

REVOLT OF THE WORKERS. AN IMPORTANT SPEECH. . DUTY OF- THE GOVERNMENT. (by telegraph.—piiess association.)' 1 Ohristchurch, May 27. At the quarterly meeting of the Canterbury Employers' Association, held to-night, the President said, the Blickball strike re- , vealed prominently several weak places in the Arbitration Act. "A serious matter," tlio President continued, "is -tlio arrival of , the timo long expected by employers when tho workers would refuse to accept the decisions of the Court. Until tho last year they have accepted them fairly weft because the awards havo generally been in their favour, but tho [maximum rates which'tho Court thinks justified having now been reached, tho workers are revolting-against it, find putting into use that power which we havo long realised ..they, possessed of risking the payment of a small fino as a premium for the added wagG or improved conditions which they hops to obtain by. more forcible means. A succession of strikes of greater or lesser degree > havo l established the fact that the workers regard the Act as no-longer 'oompulsory on them. .--On its present working, the Act can no longer be,regarded as ono of'equal justice. Tho balanco weighs wholly against tho employer, and in favour of the worker. Compulsion now extends only to employees. Tho position clearly before us is that the Act is oompulsory on employers and optional on tho workers.. It is no use trying to gloss the matter over. It is a fact' that has to be re- ' cognised and dealt with. The action, of tho .Government during the late strike has clearly shown that they, concur in. this view, and recognise the impossibility of enforcing an award against tho workers. Tlio duty ( that lies before them is therefore either to amend tho Act so that it can bo administered with equal justice Against both parties, or else to repeal it, and in its place pass measures to prevent sweating and. to encourage voluntary conciliation. I am not '.sanguine that the Government will be able to amend' the' Act. so as to satisfactorily retain tho compulsory clauses. It has prac- , tioaliy only two means of doing so —namely, by fine or imprisonment. Tho working of the ■present Act, under which a fine is the penalty," has proved conclusively that it is but a very small' deterrent to breaking tho law. Tlio one untried means of enforcement, is imprisonment. I think I shall bo voicing the opinion of most employers when I say that they would keenly regret : any alteration, of the law .which woukl subject a mail to imprisonment for refusing to . work' under such conditions or to accept pay for his' labour, at a rate'which lie considers'unfair to him. Even if the principle of imprisonment, was admitted I believe it Vsould .be practically impossible to ajjply it to an . extended degree in tho case of a big striko. From the reasons I have given it rgSl, I think, be fairly clear that'compulso 3>;arbitration' is hardly possible."'.''