The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1913. CANADA AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1702, 19 March 1913, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1913. CANADA AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

The great frequency of strikes in this country during the past five years has not ,yct persuaded a majority of the people (if Parliament is here a true reflection of public opinion)'that the weak and unsatisfactory Arbitration Act can with advantage be replaced by some other n;oasure. Most people know something by now of the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act (better known as the Lemieux Act), for its provisions have often been discussed here; and a good Uiany people are convinced that it is to some such measure as this that New Zealand must ultimately turn for relief from the Arbitration Act. These will be interested, and, indeed, overyono ought to feci interested, in ' a criticism of the Lemieux Act, which; is a most valuable contribution to the discussion of industrial law. The critic is Sik George Askwith, the famous* adjuster of strikes' in Great Britain, who is perhaps the highest authority in the world upon these questions. The last English mail brings summaries of his report (issued as a White Paper) upon the working of the Canadian law as the result of . prolonged investigations carried out by him in Canada towards the end of last year. The Act, it will be remembered, requires that any dispute arising in connection with the class of industries named, that is, mining, agency of transportation or communication, or public service utility, shall be submitted to a Board of Conciliation and Investigation, with a view to arriving at a settlement before a strike or lock-out can be legally brought about. It also stipulates that at least thirty days' notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours shall be given, and that pending the proceedings before the Board, in the event of such intended change resulting in a dispute, tho relations to each other of the parties to the dispute shall remain unchanged, and neither party shall do anything in tbo nature of

a lock-out or a strike. Its purpose, as Siu George Askwith points out, is simply to ensure the recognition of the interests of the public, as a third 'party, in trade disputes. Stress is laid upon the fact that the law differs fundamentally from compulsory arbitration of the kind which we know in New Zealand. In this passage of his report the Commissioner has some observations which will be very suggestive to those people who have not yet lost the capacity to realise how arbitrary and undesirable arc some of those restrictions on both employers and employees which are necessary conditions of the New Zealand law:

? ® eon " ie diff ers essentially from compulsory arbitration, it only endeavours to postpone a stoppage ot work in certain industries for a brief period and, for a specific purpose. It docs not destroy the right of employers or workpeople to terminate contract l ;. It does not attempt t'o rcgulato details of administration of business by employers or I Interfere with organisation of associations at employers or <jf trade anions. It legalises the community's right to intervene iu a trade dispute by enacting that R stoppago either by striko or lock-out' shall not take place until the community, tliruigh a Government Department, has investigated the difference, with the object of ascertaining if a recommendation canliot'.be made to the parties which, both can accept as a : settlement of the diff'lWaco. It presupposes that industrial diuercnccs are adjustable, and that the best method of securing adjustment is by discussion and negotiation. It stipulates th'it before a stoppage takes place the possibilities of settlement by discussion and negotiation shall have been exhausted, but, anil here it differs from compulsory arbitration, it does not prohibit a stoppage cither by lock-out or-striko if it is found tnsit no reoommendation can be made which is acceptable to both sides. If 110 way out of the difficulty can be found acceptable to both parties, there is no arbitrary- insistence upon a continuance of cither employment or labour, but both si:U« are left to take such action as thev uiay. think fit. As a result it does not force unsuitable regulations on industries by compulsory and legal insistence, but leaves an opportunity for modification by the parties. It permits elasticity and reand, if it does not effect a settlement, indicates a basis on which , one can be made".

The Act has worked extremely well, and enjoys the general support of the employers and employees of the Dominion. . This is not surprising, because it conserves those important rights which arc denied by the New Zealand measure, viz., the rights of employers and employees to regulate their own affairs, and the right of the public to share in the settlement of disputes. Canada was fortunate, of course, in the circumstances under which the Act was passed. The Canadian people and Parliament had had a long experience of strikes, under modern conditions, and had also had the advantage of witnessing tho working of the laws which ,in other countries aimed at the preservation of industrial peace and continuity. To the doubtful glory of the speculative pioneer, which was chosen for New Zealand by the clever, but over-sanguine and misguided, experimenter who fathered the Arbitration Act, Canada preferred the solid comfort of efficiency which is born of patience and of action based on study and experience. The Arbitration Act has been so long with us that too many people forget that its principle has no.greater title to sanctity than it can obtain from the fact that it was adopted by aji almostforgotten Radical politician here some 20 years ago. Its central principle (the permanent coercion and disturbance of trades) is impossible of adoption by the older and wiser countries, just as the old highbicycle with iron rims will never be used by any progressive person. The one sound principle of the old bicycle remains (the principle that one can go faster on a wheel than on foot) - and the one sound feature of the Arbitration , Act (the provision of means for bringing disputing parties together for- conciliation purposes) also remains. Sin Geor'ge Ask with recommends trie adoption by Great Britain of some form of the Canadian Act, and in doing so he points out some advantages which a very little reflection will show are not offered by 'the law in this country:

I think (he says) thit it might be feasible in the United 'Kingdom, with advantage .both to employers and employed, to give opportunity for such investigation and recommendation as would bring into light the .real causes of difficulties, and create in the public mind and in the minds of employers and employed the opinion that when opportunity exists by law, such opportunity should be token advantage of, and that strikes and lock-outs ought not to be commenced, and certainly not supported by "sympathetic" strikes, while such- investigation and recommendation are pending. Investigation and recommendation would not be necessary in all cases; and could well bo confined, at any rate in the first instance, to cases in which the public were likely t<> be seriously affected. From the point of view of the public, the advantage of such a course is obvious. The public Jiave no use for strikes or lock-outs, and such a course might reasonably be expected to lessen their number. From the point of view of the employers, suoli a course need not interfere with the administrative details of business or discipline, but should give better opportunity for regular and ccnstcutive business. From the point of view of t'hc employees, such a course would enable thpm to bring forward valid grievances with some opportunity of their being heard, and afford that chance of discussion, or of opening the way towards discussion, which is so often found by the workpeople to be impracticable either in fact' or in belief.