The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1921. THE ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 56, 30 November 1921, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1921. THE ARBITRATION COURT

The position of workers' representative on the Arbitration Court is once more made vacant by the resignation of Mr. J. A. McCullough, and before it is filled Parliament ought to give serious attention to the conditions in which the election, or appointment, is made. The issues involved are not so complex that Parliament need hesitate to overhaul the voting procedure during the present session. No doubt the best course would be to postpone an election, continuing meantime the arrangement under which the duties of workers’ assessor are undertaken by the deputy representative (Mr. M. J. Reardon), and deal at the first convenient opportunity before the session ends with what permanent legislation is necessary to establish the constitution of the Court on a satisfactory basis. Several changes have been widely advocated amongst both parties in industry which would be likely to contribute to the smooth working of the Arbitration Act. One of these is the proposal, now put forward by the Typographical Union, that the President of the Court should be empowered, on the request of either party to a dispute, to permit two special assessors representing respectively the employers and employees concerned to take the place of the permanent assessors. Presumably it is intended that it should be left to the presiding Judge to determine in what disputes the ’ appointment of special assessors is necessary and desirable. There is no doubt that the appointment of such assessors would at times be advantageous, and would facilitate a firm and satisfactory settlement, in the case of disputes affecting industries the details of which are in themselves highly technical. The Typographical Union takes a sound stand in urging that the special representation of the public—“the third party”— on the Arbitration Court is unnecessary. It is in the case of disputes settled by the parties in secret conference, without reference of any kind to the Court, that the interests of the general public are, or are liable to be, ignored. Where disputes arc referred to the Court, it unquestionably devolves upon the presiding Judge to safeguard th'e interests of the public as well as to hold the balance fairly between the parties directly concerned.

While there is no doubt that provision for the appointment of special assessors in disputes of a technical nature would strengthen and improve the Act, the conditions in which unions at present vote in connection with the appointment of a representative on the Court stand as a whole badly in need of revision. Under existing legislation the actual power of appointment is vested in the Government, and the voting by the unions has the force only of a recommendation. In practice, however, the recommendation given by the unions in recording a majority of votes for a particular candidate is carried into effect by the Government, and it is correspondingly important that voting power should be adjusted on a fair and equitable basis. This is very far from being the case at present. The basis of voting power —one vote for every fifty members —is unfair in itself, and as matters stand a preponderance of voting power is exercised by unions which as a point of set practice refuse to submit disputes in which they are 'concerned to the Court for adjudication. There is a plain guide to Parliamentary action in the statement made a month or two ago by Mr. J. Roberts (secretary of the Alliance of Labour), that the alliance “Held a trump card because of the votes it controlled in the election of a member of the Court.” This statement was not made publicly, but it was reported publicly, and Mr. Roberts has not challenged its accuracy. It is the simple truth that in existing circumstances unions hostile to the Court exert a preponderance of voting strength in the election of a workers’ representative. One of the organisations included in the Alliance of Labour is the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. According to the statistics of union strength published in the Department of Labour’s report of last year, the society has 7934 members, and is therefore entitled to record 158 votes in the election of a workers’ representative on the Court. The waterside workers’ unions in the four main centres exercise between them (on the basis of last year’s union statistics) 89 votes, and similarly heavy voting powers are vested in other bodies affiliated to the Alliance of Labour, most of which refuse to submit disputes to the Court. On the other hand, last year’s list of unions includes 125 which have a membership of 50 or less, and are therefore entitled to only one vote each. The workers belonging to these small unions are engaged in varied callings, and obviously have a vital interest in upholding the Aibitration Court and securing th.; smooth working of the Act. As much may be said of many other unions of somewhat more numerous membership which still possess a very limited voting power in comparison with the few big unions which are doing their utmost to nullify the Arbitration Act. The remedy, no doubt, is to impose some reasonable limitation on the voting power of individual unions, either by substantially increasing the quota of members in respect of ..■which a vo.te is allowed, or by fixing a maximum number of votes to be cast by any one union. The voting power of the Amalgamated Society of Rail-

way Servants clearly ought to bo abolished. It has never submitted a dispute to the Court, and indeed as a departmental service with its wages periodically adjusted by Parliament is not in a position to do so. It is quite ridiculous that a body thus circumstanced should be allowed to out-vote anything from one hundred to one hundred and fifty individual unions which habitually refer disputes to the Court, or are prepared to do so should the need arise. As a matter of justice to- the unions which depend upon and look to the Court, Parliament certainly ought to amend the whole system of voting for a workers’ representative before this session comes to an end. This might be done comparatively at leisure if are rangements were made meantime to continue the Court temporarily as it is at present constituted.