ARBITRATION AND INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 14, 11 October 1921, Page 5

ARBITRATION AND INDUSTRY

Sir,—l have read with some interest your article in this morning’s issue on the above subject, and whilst I neither uphold nor condemn tho Arbitration Court, I cannot follow tho reasoning of your remedy. You say: "The arrangement under which unions in electing «. representative on the Arbitration Court exercise one vote for every fifty members admittedly plays into the 'hands of a few unions of large membership, which regard the Court from a standpoint of hostility. By increasing the voting quota from 50 to 200, and cancelling the statu--tory registration and consequent voting power of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants —a l>ody which never uses the machiney of the Court—Parliament would extend a measure of justice to unions which support and look to the Court, and at the same time do something to strengthen and impart stability to the arbitration system.” Your remedy, therefore, is: (a) One vote for every 200 member's; and (b) cancel the statutory registration of the A.S.R.S. because they never use it. ■ Truly a wonderful remedy, and one ' which will surely appeal to the workers! The small district unions, which now 'have four votes for 200 member's, would get one vote, whereas the large, or- ■ ganisations with 9000 members, which now havo 180 votes, would get 45. I do ! not mind that arrangement in the least, although it is a conservative idea of what is just, but would it not be more equitable for each organisation to vote according to its membership, forgetting that a large organisation is only the concentration of all the men in a particular industry into one national body, whereas the organisations you are supposedly pleading for have a number of organisations each exercising it own little vote. In other words, your first suggestion will not make one iota of differ- '■ enco to the present system. But what about cancelling the larger organism-. tions’ registration, and cutting them out altogether because they do not use the Court P The Court was never intended to bo tho only means of fixing wages and conditions. It was established for the purpose of adjusting wages and conditions when the employe®and employee could not agree, but because the larger organisations 'have so far been able fo' settle their differences without tho aid of the Co'nft you say cancel their registration. Bo you really think that will give the Court stability? Will it not give the larger organisations more freedom of action, and exempt them from the penalties of the Arbitration Act? But assuming that the A.S.R.S. did use tho Court, wo should from experience, want a little Court sitting all the time to deal with breaches of the award. When the union was at fault it and tho men would have to pay the penalty, but what if tho Minister, who is responsible for tho action of his officers, committed a breach? The Minister of Labour, who may hold the position of Minister of Railways also, would have to take action against himself, and if—l say “if” advisedly—ho were punished by fine, the community would pay, and not himself, as Minister; so you see, so far as the Crown as an employer is concerned, it is “heads I win, tails you lose." There is only one thing that will give stability to the Court, and the arbitration system, and that is the Court murt deni with industrially organised national, organisations only. Give national awards, tho workers in each industry to have representation on tho Court, and the Court to havo the aid of a qualified accountant for the purpose of investigating tho financial position of an industry to see whether that industry will stand any further strain being put upon it, and, finally, tho Court to have the power to say to what extent any increass granted shall be handed on to the community.—l am, etc., M. J. MACK. Wellington, October 5, 1921.