The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1911. SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1221, 1 September 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1911. SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTES.

$ 'Amongst the cable messages of Tuesday relating to the industrial disturbances in Britain were two items ot' much interest. One related that Sir W. Hall-Jones had recommended, in a newspaper interview, tho adoption by Britain of compulsory, arbitration on the lines New Zealand has followed. The other reported the substance of what seems to be an excellent Bill introduced by Mr. Will Crooks. His measure proposes that employers and workers must give a month's notice of any change affecting conditions and wages and that- penalties shall be inllictcd on those who shall cause a strike or lock-out prior to the investigation of a dispute by a board of three appointed by the Board of Trade, It ncod hardly besaid that Sir. ,\V. Hall-Joxes's coxni-

cat suggestion will not receive a Viioniejit's attention from any responsible person, but it is of interest because it brings Mr,. W. P. .Heeves's crotchet in direct contrast, in an ideal sotting, with the only true and sound principle of industrial peace-making. Mr. Crooks's Bill is obviously the Canadian Act in its essentials, and its introduction is another addition to the mass ot testimony furnished by American and .European approval of the Canadian law. We referred the other day to the proposal of Sni Charles Macara, the lamous cotton spinner, whose notable labours for industrial peace earned him a baronetcy, in a letter to the Lord Mayor of Manchester. Silt Ciiakixs, it will be remembered, gave as the fruit of his long experience the conviction that a special board, headed by an industrial Judge, should be created to hear labour disputes, and he made it clear in a subsequent statement that the decision of the board must have no compulsory character. Sik Charles Macara's opinion carries very great weight, and his suggestion naturally attracted widespread attention, iii answer to. a question in the House of Commons Mr. Asquitk gave what, in all the circumstances, was a friendly and encouraging opinion upon the suggestion. .The Manchester Guardian correctly implied the general British view when, in an approving articlc, it reserved from interference "the- rights and liberties which employers and employed alike jealously cherish." A valuable contribution to the discussion came in the shape of a letter to the Times from Mr. S. B. Boulton, the chairman for 21 years of the London Labour Conciliation and. Arbitration Board. This board is composed of 12 representatives of employers elected by the London Chamber of Commerce from amongst men thoroughly acquainted with the condition of labour in the various trades of London, and 12 representatives of Labour elected by the trades unions of London. Th 6 elections take place every year. When 'any dispute- is brought before the Board, a number of arbitrators are selected from a mixed panel, and these hear and adjudicate upon the points at issue, it is a remarkable fact that in drawing up the awards the necessity of appointing an umpire in the event of the tw6 orders not being able to agree has never yet risen. Mr. Boulton strongly favours voluntary arbitration, as one might expect, but he does not care for an arbitration department under State control, even of the moderate type suggested by Sip. Charles Macara. He notes that "the experience of the greatest effort which has recently been made to settle labour 1 disputes by judicial decisions has not been, to'say the least of it, encouraging, in .New Zealand." "Compulsory arbitration as to labour disputes," he says, "is out of the question in this country." It is, indeed, only from trivial >and ill-in-formed people that any approval of the New Zealand system comes from abroad. It may be suggested—indeed, it lias been suggested—that British brains are poor, that British commercial and industrial leaders are short-sighted and dull, that British statesmen arc inferior crea tures, when compared with New Zealand brains, New Zealand public men,"-and New Zealand politicians. But the time is fast approaching when the New Zealand public will realise that British opinion in the matter of industrial regulation is to New Zealand opinion in the same ratio', so far as knowledge and value arc concerned, as the average British statesman— a scholar, a thinker, and a lifelong dealer in great practical issues—is to, say, Mr. Buddo or Sir John Findlay.