HOBBLES ON INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 134, 8 June 1937, Page 8

HOBBLES ON INDUSTRY

In drawing attention, at a sitting of the Arbitration Court at Christchurch, to the difficulty of reconciling an eight-hour day with a 40-hour week in-the working of a tramway system, Mr.. Justice O'Regan reinforced the argument frequently advanced of late in regard to the unforeseen effects of industrial legislation. The Court, he said, had no powers to amend the daily hours of labour when ordaining a 40-hour week and the work could not be spread so as to reduce the working hours per day without exceeding forty hours over a six-day week. The legal position would have been different if the wording in the agreement had been more elastic. The real position had doubtless not been contemplated by either party when the application to reduce the weekly hours was being argued. His Honour then made a general observation in these words: This illustrates very strongly the need for more elasticity in the framing of legislation which, though having a definite objective, is certain in practice to have unexpected repercussions on account of the varying circumstances in different industries. The serious effects of this inelasticity in industrial legislation have been noted again and again as reacting harmfully both on employer and employee. The outstanding example, of course, is the basic wage and the rigid apprenticeship law. The Arbitration Court, as his Honour points out, is powerless to undo the evil; it can only draw attention to it. The task is for the Legislature, which was the prime cause of the trouble, and it should be one of the first duties of Parliament, when it meets again, to act quickly and effectively in removing the hobbles from industry.