ARBITRATION ACT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1502, 26 July 1912, Page 6

ARBITRATION ACT.

WHY IT HAS FAILED. ..VIEW OF THE EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION, Tho annual report of the Wellington Employers' Association now to hand deals with tho reasons which havo brought about tho alleged failure of tho Arbitration Act, from tho jurisdiction, of which m> many unions havo seceded during the past year. The report fays:— "The cancellation of registration of unions has continued, largely as a result of tho operations of tho small body of malcontents and irresponsible? who arc lenders of the New Zealand Federation of Labour. This federation has taken part in conferences with employers with tho object of settling working conditions, and the arrangements arrived at havo been signed in good faith end strictly observed by the employers. SUico some of these agreements were- entered into employers have been astonished to learn that tho avowed policy of tin's federation is to respect agreements so long as' they suit . their purpose, but to thaw them aside whenever they prove to be in tho way their programme for tho time being. "Your committee still believes tho incorporation in our .Arbitration Act of the provisions of the Canadian Disputes Investigation Act (as proposed by this ftKOciation in its annual Teport for 1910; would act as a decided check to unjustifiable and lawless strikes snch as have been taking place recently. That Act provides substantial penalties if a striko or lock-out occurs without one month's notice being given, and your committee considers the necessity for this notice would give the workers, time for reflection, nnd the employers and the general public opportunity to prepare should a strike ultimately occur. Had this law been on the statute books (liming the past 12 months there is ra> doubt it would havo prevented at least some of tho strikes tho Dominion 'lias experienced.

An Unfair Position. "There is evidence that the policy of some sections of labour is to secure tho utmost they possibly can through the Arbitration Court, at tho same time doing thoir best to influence, legislation in their favour, with the ultimate object of throwing over the Arbitration Act when tho Court yields no more to thoir importunities. Your committee again draws attention to the unfair position are placed in. They have no escape form the Act, while workers' unions aro free to 'either" retain, its advantages by remaining under it, or avoid its penalties by cancelling their registration and adopting other methods to secure their ends. "The Act should .at least contain a provision similar to (hat in the West Australian Arbitration Act which gives any party to an award tlio right to terminate the operation of the award as soo'ii as the period for which it has .been made expires. Recent Amendments, "The., amendments, to-the Act hastily passed by Parliament last -year, call for comment.'" Claiisa 3 provides for. agreements entered into by employers who employ, a majority of workers in an ■ industry being niadD.into award;,.' This sceiiis to jour committee to bo an unfair provision, which nullifies the repeatedly expressed opinions of the Court that person should be bound by an award until an op•portunity has been given for each party concerned to submit evidence to the Court. Clause 4 contains provisions for application being mado direct to the Court for Dominion awards, but.there is no clear indication as to the procedure to be • adopted. Employers' counter-pro-posals in any dispute .have now to bo lodged with the Conciliation Commissioner three clear days before, a disonte is sot down for hearing, and if a Conciliation Council files a recommendation, it becomes the duty of those employers who disagree with tlie recommendation to file notice of their disagreement with the Clerk of- Awards within one month. If no notice of disagreement be lodged, tho recommendation, -practically becomes an award. "The - Legislature is apparently determined tho Court, shall not retain any discretionary powers with 'respect to matters covered by legislation. Clause 10 of tho Amendment Act reads: —'No award of the Court'shall contain any provision that is inconsistent with any statute which makes Special provision, for any of the mattem 'before the Court. , '

The Arbitration Court. "Various suggestions have botm made that the personnel of the Court should be changed by the' appointment of representatives for each trade, so that each dispute should be heard and determined by men who. hntl had practical experience in the industry,; tho working conditions of which were under mim. The practical working of snoh a scheme operating in such a district as. this would mean that there would be in attendance at the several sittings of the Court in. the various; centres a retinue- of at least two assessors in connection with each, dispute. The expenses of the Court would bo very largely increased, and it is certain the results would be less satisfactory than the present method, as (he various asesors would he unused to the Court procedure, and probably without knowledge of its previous decisions. Further, the Arbitration Act lias always contained provisions for the appointment of special assessors if the (Parties desiro to have- them. It lias also been suggested tlmt a practical busines man should bo appointed, president of the Court, in place of a Supremo Court Judge. Your committee is very decidedly of opinion that the president of the Court should be ono who has been trained to the legal profession."