The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1920. ARBITRATION ON TRIAL
The circumstances connected with the resignation of Mr. Justice Higgins from the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, over which he has presided for the last thirteen years, are not without interest in this country. They cast a considerable amount of light upon the operation of a system of industrial arbitration which closely resembles our own, and also upon the extent to which it has been«(?ound wanting. In the course of an extended statement which he made at the beginning of last week, Me. Justice Higgins explained that his resignation was due to. his opinion that the public usefulness of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has been fatally injured by the policy adopted, and given definite shape in the Industrial Peace Act, of setting up special tribunals to prevent or settle industrial disputes. Maintaining in the first place that the Court had been of great public service, "keeping the wheels of industry moving, standardising work conditions, and easing the conditions of the workers under the pressure of the rising cost of living," and that it had saved the community from the violent crises which had occurred during the war in other countries, Mr. Justice Higgins went on to urge, that the influence and usefulness of the Court were undermined by the creation of temporary tribunals which "must be merely opportunist—seeking to get" the work of the particular industry carried on at all costs, even at the cost of concessions to unjust demands and of encouraging similar demands from other quarters." A union which knew that a certain claim was unlikely to be conceded by the Court, Justice Higgins remarked, would press for a special tribunal, and the special tribunal appointed by the Government would be apt to yield to demands for the sake of continuity in the one industry before it, regardless of the consequences in other industries.
The objectives of the permanent Court and of the temporary tribunals aro, in truth, quite different— one seeks to provide a just and balancsd system which will tend to continuity of work in industries generally, whereas the other seeks to provent or to end a present strike in one industry. . . A tribunal of reason cannot do i.ts work side by side with executive tribunals of panic. . . . My objection is not to the creation of other tribunals. ... To create 6ome permanent tribunals for specific industries or groups of industries might be a legitimate way of relieving the Court of the pressuro of business. But they should bo permanent, not temporary; and there ought to lie some co-ordinating authority like an Appeal Court to bring the sovorul firibuiuils into consistency and system, for tho tribunals, being independent of each other, must sometimes differ iu their awards, und there is nothing that creates more industrial troubles than contrasts in conditions—unless it be tho intermeddling of a pliable Executive. Although they_ are in several respects interesting, these observations arc devoid of much of the weight they would otherwise carry for the reason that they credit the Commonwealth Arbitration Court with a measure of achievement it has not in fact attained. The creation of special tribunals to prevent or settle industrial disputes is at best an experiment—one which, for tho reasons cogently stated by Mr. Justice Higgins, would admittedly be indefensible if under tho jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court industries in general were securing sottlcd and equitably standardised conditions. It-is abundantly clear, however, after an extended experience of the present system of industrial arbitration, that these desirable conditions are still to seek.
It is on record, for instance, that in the six years to the end of 16i9 there were no fewer than 2505 strikes in the Commonwealth, which' involved 683,048 workpeople, and resulted in the loss of M, 185,787 working days and £8,278,543 in wages. As it is elaborated in tho Industrial Peace Act, the policy of setting up
special tribunals _to prevent or settle industrial disputes is not the cause but the outcome, of industrial conditions markedly lacking in the' features of stability and standardisation to which MX Justice Higgins alludes. With the arbitration system in operation, militant unions at intervals have paralysed industry in general, penalising the rest of the community, iucluding their fellow-workers, and very often putting the latter at a most unfair disadvantage. At the same time, it becomes clearer every day that the arbitration system as it stands offers no remedy for these evils. AVe are not, of course, suggesting that Mr. Justice Higgins is responsible for the demonstrated shortcomings of the system of industrial arbitration in Australia': As fi matter of fact he has made it clear that he favours modifying the system in sorro important particulars, and in the explanatory statement which has been quoted he mentions that a number of his suggestions for tHe improvement of the Commonwealth Arbitration Act have been disregarded or ! "mishandled." The point to be emthat the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, working within the limits set for it, has failed to promote sound industrial conditions. By some sections of the workers it has been flouted or ignored, and even where its jurisdiction has been accepted, its success rests upon n rather uncertain foundation. Both in Australia and in this country tho Arbitration Court has come to bo regarded as a tribunal which exists only or chiefly to raise wages, and there is point in the observation that the real test, of its authority will como when it has to legislate that wages bo reduced. Disregarding such personal questions as are or may bo raised between Mr. Justice Higgins and the Commonwealth Prime Minister, there is no doubt thai tho Federal Government has justification for seeking some better means of promoting industrial peace and stability than the arbitration system has yet afforded. Although it has yet to be put to a working test, the Industrial Peace Act evidently contains something ' better than, machinery for setting up "executivetribunals of panic." In essence it embodies the familiar machinery of wages boarfls, together with some of the features associated with Whitley council. It provides for the constitution of council of industrial representatives on a Commonwealth, district and local.basis, and on occasion for the appointment of special tribunals. In every case employers and workers are to be equally represented, and a chairman is to be appointed by agreement, if possible, and otherwise by the GovernorGeneral. As the Act is framed these bodies are to deal not only with disputes, but with industrial matters out of which disputes are-,liable to arise. The need of co-ordination, upon which Mr.- Justice Higginh has laid just emphasis, is recognised in the provision made for the creation of a Commonwealth Council of Industrial Representative!!, with broad working scope and extended powers. _ The effect,of the Act of course will depend upUn the extent to which the parties in industry, show themselves animated by a genuine desire to arrive at adjustments fair in themselves and in relation to industrial conditions generally. This vjtal condition of industrial peace and stability is not to be secured by Act of Parliament, but as a working framework the Industrial Peace Act offers some manifest advantages over the arbitration system in vogue. Fairly turned to account, it ought to ensure a much more expeditious consideration and settlement of industrial disputes than is to be expected from an overworked Arbitration Court. From this standpoint and others the operation of the Act rnav _point the way to a somewhat similar development in this country, whcro_thc shortcomings and failures of industrial arbitration as it is at present applied are almost as obvious as in Australia.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19201103.2.27
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 33, 3 November 1920, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,265The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1920. ARBITRATION ON TRIAL Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 33, 3 November 1920, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.