ARBITRATION SYSTEM

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 135, 4 December 1929, Page 12

ARBITRATION SYSTEM

INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE

LABOUR'S POLICY

Replying to Mr. Johnston, who had stated that the policy of the New ZeaJand Labour Party was to widen the breach between Capital and Labour Mr. JNash, speaking at Eastbourne last evening, said: "No statement could be further from ' the truth. On the other hand," stated Mr. Nash, "a review of the factors which lea up to the calling of the Industrial Conference would prove that it was the policy of the Eeform Party, the party to which Mr. Johnston owes allegiance, as expressed in the legislation introduced into Parliament by them, which aimed at preventing the closer co-operation of the- workers and the employees. The Eeform Party introduced into Parliament in 1927, at the instigation of a section of employers, a Bill to amend the I.C. and A. Act which would (had it become law) have prevented one of the largest sections of our industrial workers from using the machinery provided in the Arbitration Act for the settlement of disputes which may arise from time to time regarding rates of pay or conditions. The Eeform Party (Mr. Johnston's party), together with the Employers' Federation, desired to change our present arbitration system for what has become known as optional arbitration. Under this proposal the representation of the workers and the representatives of the employers could meet in conciliation in the same way as they do at the present time. The difference, however, lies in the fact that unless they could come to an agreement on the points at issue, or unanimously agree to refer it to the Arbitration Court, the dispute would have to be settled by what is termed a trial of strength—the strike policy. Nothing that I know of could be more calculated to drive the workers and employers apart than this proposal which was introduced by the Eeform Party. "PRESENT METHOD BEST." "The Labour Party members in Die House, and the industrial leaders, all realised this. None of them desire in the slightest degree to prevent in j any way the fullest co-operation in

investigating what wages shall be paid for work done, or what conditions shall govern in industry. Every sound employer agrees and the Labour Party agrees that the best possible wages should be paid and tho best conditions obtained. We shall continue to fight in that direction. We hold that the present method is the best. . .

'' So keen were the members of the industrial movement to retain the present method that when this legsilation was introduced by the Reform Government they called a representative conference in Wellington. From that conference a deputation waited upon the Government to request the withdrawal of th<> Bill. The Government refused and sent the Bill to the Labour Bills Committee.

"Whilst it was before the Labour Bills Committee I was privileged, as the secretary of the Labour Legislative Committee, to organise the cvi dence which was to be placed for the Labour movement against the Bill. During the fortnight when it was bofore the Committed thirty-two witnesses gave evidence—not all workers, some employers—all against the Bill. All agreed that it would have the effect of destroying rather than improving the good relationship between Capital and Labour. When the Bill went before the Committee it contained twenty-one clauses; when it came back to the House it only had six clauses. Even then the Labour members were not satisfied that it would not do infinite harm, and stated that they would resist with all the power they had the passimr of the Bill into law. So strong wai this opposition that the Government had to drop it and act on the suggestion of the Labour Party to call the Industrial Conference, which comprised representatives of employers, workers, farmers, Government Departments, and economists."