The Dominion. FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 1910. CONCILIATION?

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 792, 15 April 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 1910. CONCILIATION?

That it is "a return to the original measure" is the .most frequent description of the Arbitration Act of 1908 by those -whose business it is to defend the coercion of.industry by the State. They think, and not without good reason, that they cari--1 not praise the Act more highly than by saying that , it encourages the spirit of friendly conciliation. This tendency is to be welcomed as significant of a weakening belief in the virtue of rigid compulsion, but the statement that the legislation of 1908 made for true conciliation by firing away the irritant ingredients of the Act as it stood in 1907 is unfortunately not- correct. It was niade dear, the other day at the meeting of the Canterbury Employers' Association that, the apparent success of the Conciliation Councils covers up a growing sense of injustice, amongst employers: they are driven, by their unwillingness to risk being branded as contumacious foes of conciliation, to accept terms which they believe to be unfair and unjustified. Further evidence ■ that the Act is not even now ..the beneficent measure that some people supposo it to be was furnisned by the discussion at Wednesday's meeting of the Conciliation Council to conV sider the "dispute" in the engineering trade. This discussion, which we; reported at length in our issue of yesterday, is well worth the attention of everybody interested in the working of the Act. Summoned by a: circular stating that a'dispute had arisen in the trade, a large number of employers assembled in the ■■■ Conciliatipn Commissioner's office, not to present their side in the dispute; but to discover how, when, and where the dispute had arisen. None of those served with notice , to attend; it appears, were aware that any dispute had arisen. Several of. the employers-stated that they heard of no dispute, and no evidence waa forthcoming to rebut their statements. On the contrary, the Commissionor practically adr mitted that his . circular ■ must' havo come, as a-surprise to ■ the trade. .Asked whether he had .any , jurisdiction in such an ■ estraprdiuv ary set of circumstances, Mi). Hally replied that there "was a dispute all right." ''These demands'," ..-.he' pointed out,."are made, and I,take it you don't agree to them. If you' don't agree to"them{there'i.B a disr pute;" Thjs ruling, -which,, we ber lieve,- is strictly in accordance with the Act, is like nothing so much as the rulings of the King of Hearts in the remarkable trial in Lewis OARr Roth's Through the Looking Glass. Mb.' Allen, pnly.partially indicated the absurdity of the situation when he'said it was "like saying an assault had been'committed Toefore a blow had been'struck."

The Act prescribes, that "any industrial union . . . being a

party to an industrial dispute, may make application" to the Commissioner that the dispute may_ be heard 6y a Council of Conciliation.' Owing, however, to the neglect of Parneglect utterly without defence in the light of experience, as we shall see—to define trial dispute," it is open to any union to'drag hundreds of employers before a Conciliation Council without those employers being aware that there is .any dissatisfaction amongst their employees as to their conditions of work and pay. A test case was brought in 1906 to determine what "constituted a "dispute." The employer company concerned in the cast) pleaded that before there could be a dispute there must be a condition approaching actual warfare, but' Judge Cooper held, in a decision delivered on August 6, 1906, that for a dispute to exist'it was "only necessary that there should bo a difference concerning the conditions of employment" between the parties. That judgment was considered at the time to give a very wide interpretation to the Act, and to run counter to the intention of the framer and supporters- of the original measure. But what are we; to say of a condition of things un-' der which , , it is not even necessary that a "difference , ' shall exist, much less an acute disagreement, in order that a union may hale the omployers before the Conciliation Council % It is obvious that as the law.stands a union may harass the employers just as it pleases. No employer, however confident he may, be that his men are contented, however ready he may be to make any reasonable concessions that his employees may suggest, can feel safe from being embroiled in a struggle with the union. It is possible for the wholo body of employers, while cpngratulating themselves on the smoothness of their relations with their men, to find themselves summoned to defend themselves in a dispute they had never heard of, and that never existed. This is surely an extravagantly absurd and undesirable state of things. Mr. Hally attempted to defpnd Uiq working of the Act in Wednesday's case by saying that "very often it is not convenient for men to tell you directly that there is something the matter. Very often," ho added, ''they will deal with the matter through their union without telling you directly." Can it be contended that a law which thus encourages the workers to avoid any attempt at private negotiation with the employers! is a law that encourages conciliation i Is it not, on the contrary, quite obvious that employers thus unfairly treated, and thus without warning .dragged before the Council, will be ;is little as-is possible inclined .jo conciliation \