The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1911. COLLECTIVE INDUSTRIAL BARGAINING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1147, 7 June 1911, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1911. COLLECTIVE INDUSTRIAL BARGAINING.

Is his excellent speech last week Mr. F. M. B. FisiiEit gave a list of the Acts that he considers it would he beneficial to repeal, and amongst these was tho Arbitration Act. Although at different times during tho past three years many thitherto stout defenders of tho Act went nearly the whole distance towards suggesting its repeal—and Mr.. Millar himself is one of these—tho present might at first sight appear to be an unfavourable time for the advocacy of a new arrangement. But it is really not unfavourable; for, though it may bo quite a little while since there was a strike, with its abundant proof of the unreality and uselcssness of the Act either as a measure of prevention or punishment in times of crisis, there is yet a constant soreness and irritation in industry. Unionists are discontented, and employers are worried. A surface harmony is preserved only by .the general meekness of the employers. Like everybody else we desire very earnestly that labour no less than capital should receive a fair reward, and that real harmony should exist between employers and employed, since harmony and confidence are essential to abundant production, which is tho foundation of a community's comfort. The Arbitration Act, Mr. Fjshek urges, should bo repealed, 'and replaced by a system of Wages Boards. His final conversion to this opinion is the result of his observations in Australia, ' and this is only natural, since every unprejudiced person in Australia has seen for himself that ' the Wages Board system works on the whole extremely well. New South Wales was tho first Australian State to adopt a scheme of compulsory arbitration on New Zealand lines. No doubt when the Act was passed, its authors felt quite certain that the fierce penalties provided against strikes and strikers would secure an endless industrial peace. But the very first union that considered itself unfairly treated by the Court promptly declared a strike. Its members laid down their tools without a second's hesitation. The Act instantly broke down. The "Wade Government passed a still more stringent law, but once again the unions defied the law, and, if it thought it worth while, there is not a union in the State that would not order a strike ' to-morrow. The fact is, as all experience shows, that Compulsory Arbitration Acts are of no effect as preventives of strikes. The Melbourne Age, indeed, said in a recent article that compulsory arbitration is of all schemes "the least effective means of settling industrial disputes," and it gives the reason: Tho Compulsory Court is necessarily a tribunal outside of industry, and it is practically an absolute impossibility for members of an industry lo rest content with decrees which have been framed arbitrarily, not on expert first-hand knowledge, but on evidence. The Wages Boards, per contra, are effective, because composed of export 'tradesmen who are themselves parties to tho disputes they have to settle. And not merely arc they tribunals inside of industry, and part and parcel of industry, ljut at Hie basis of their constitution lies the essentially important fact that they give free play to the principlo of collective bargaining. Tito system recognises the right of the employer to a collective voice in the administration of, their own affairs and their right to offer for pale the commodity they havo to soil (labour), not as individuals, but as a body. In other words, tho system places the men on terms of exact equality with their employers, and therefore every decision arrived . at by the system in operation bears no resemblance to a decree, but is in fact and in essence a compact mutually agreed upon by masters and men.

This is the testimony of an acute observer of the success of the Wages Board system in Victoria. It is a piece of analysis that will probably pass over tho .heads of politicians, theorists, and labour agitators; but by. tho man who works at a trade and by the man vvho employs a number of workmen its truth and value will be instantly appreciated. Workmen and their employers arc the only experts; they know, what most other people can only theorise about, the realities of industry.

There is a valuable article on the Wages Board idea, which is really the idea of co-operation, in the Economist of March 18. This article tells us of a "very comprehensive and quite remarkable labour treaty" that has been arranged for the government of what is perhaps the greatest industry in the world—the British shipbuilding trade. This treaty was the result of a conference held after the termination of the great lock-out. The real difficulty was not as between the employers and tho unions in this great trade, but as between union and union. A general agreement was drawn up in 1909, but there was contained in it no means of preventing "sectional strikes." It was mainly to provide adequate "assurances" of fidelity that the recent conference was called together, and the conference was an unqualified success. The question as to whether a stoppage of work is a breach of agreement is to be decided by a council of six—three appointed by each side—not connected with the works where the case arises. If this council fails to agree, an independent referee may be called in. AVlicn a verdict of guilty is declared, tho offending parties are to ba dealt with—"in the case of the workmen by the executive council of the society, in accordance with the rules of the society; and in the case of an employer by the executive board of the federation in accordance with the rules of the federation"—and a joint committee is to see that the punishment is carried out. As the Economist says, the great fact in the treaty

"that bodies of employers and'of workmen meet as equally responsible contracting bodies to nc-gotiato a business contract, and each collective body holds the other collective body responsible for the effective performance of its share of the contract; that tlicra is no dealing between organisations ■ and individuals, but only between organisations; that no strike or lock-out can occur at tho caprice of a section of ifither workmen or employers without bringing to bear on then) the full weight of the associated trade unions or of the federated employers; and I hat every dispute within die industry will bi- dealt with by persons within the industry itself. On industrial points there is no remission lo outside judgment, for what .shipbuilders iind shipbuilding workers cannot decide with regard to their own work it is not likely that anyone unacquainted with Ihc history and technicalities of Ihe (rarle can equitably determine. No such body as tho Board of Trade, for exn in pie, can ever be, or fhoitld bo, properly qualified , to interfere as an arbi-

tral tribunal in industrial cases. Its mission is ami should only lie to draw the parties I'o.jytliiT to discuss the differences under their own conditions."

What reason can there be for supposing that tho principlo of this— ''the finest and fullest example of collective bargaining," to quote tho Kennnmist, "that has ever been effected, . . . the most comprehensive and pacific labour contract tho world has ever seen"—cannot succeed in New Zealand, where, whatever anybody may say to tho contrary, the principle of compulsory arbitration has failed, and must continue to fail 1