CHANGE NEEDED

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 23, 27 July 1939, Page 11

CHANGE NEEDED

ARBITRATION SYSTEM

MINISTER'S VIEW

UNIFORMITY IN

AWARDS

The Government's concern about i( the need for some improvement of the existing mechanism for dealing j with industrial disputes was express-1, ed by the Minister of Justice (the Hon. H. G. R; Mason), when reply- , ing today to a deputation represent- , ing the national council of the New ( Zealand Labourers' Federation which : waited upon him in reference to the : builders' and general 'labourers' - award and the operation of the Arbi- ' tration Court. The Minister said 1 that the Government would use its Lest endeavours to devise some means : of effecting improvements. : Mi*. F. D. Cornwell, secretary of thejNew Zealand Federation of Labour, in-j" troduced the deputation, which consist-;: ed of the president of the Labourers' : Federation (Mr. L. Glover), the secretary (Mr. P. M. Butler), Mr. T. Stan ■ ley (Auckland), and Mr. C. E. Bick- : lord (Poverty Bay). : BASIS OF AWARDS. There were two questions of vital , importance which the deputation , wished to discuss, said Mr. Butler. These were, first, the basis on which , "ijhe Court of Arbitration made awards, . and, second, the apparent impunity with which sections of the Press and ; others could comment prejudicially on matters before the Court. Mr. Butler claimed that the Court was issuing , awards without regard to the weight of evidence submitted and which, he , contended, clearly indicated that insufficient or careless attention was given to matters placed before it for depision. The Court had tremendous power, and there was no appeal from it. ' ■ . ! "We have come here to deal particularly with.our own award," said Mi. Butler.. "We are not coming along here to squeal and get a decision from another referee. We say that the Court should sift all the evidence . placed before it in that way. If the case had been dealt with in the usual [ manner, then the decision would have ( been very different from what it was." . VARIANCE IN AWARDS. The Court had indicated, he said, that i it wanted Dominion awards. The < , national organisation of carpenters and ■ the labourers' organisation in deference to the expressed wish of the '■ Court, had. their cases heard conjointly, * as they wanted similar conditions of employment for workers in the one in- '■ dustry. They thought that the Court would have .seized this opportunity of : making the conditions on the job at least uniform. The labourers' award was, issued a few days before the car- . penters'-award and. there were great ••■ points of variance. The labourer ; working in certain places, the Court laid down, should get a certain amount. The carpenter working on the same job was treated differently. The Court, they thought, had not given proper care and attention to the position. An allegation was made by Mr. But-, ler that when a structural engineer em-. plQjfeq* t>y -a local body; gave evidence1 for fhVurilon on the question of skilled; and unskilled work only, the Master Builders' Association of Wellington had written to the man's employers protesting against his -having given evidence. INVESTIGATION SOUGHT. Mr; .Butler outlined the specific requests of the deputation as follows: (1) That a committee or commission rbe-setup to investigate and report on the matters raised; (2) that if the I. .Minister were satisfied with the justice of the submissions, he recommend to Cabinet the introduction of legislation for the cancellation of the present labourers' award and for a rehearing; (3) that the Minister take "action against the newspapers which, in the deputation's opinion, comment•ed prejudically upon its case while-it was still sub judice; (4) that the Minister investigate the complaint of the intimidation of one witness with a • view to taking the necessary action against the Master Builders' Association; (5) that the Arbitration Court •!be advised that in making awards it shall observe the Act respecting its jurisdiction and that it shall deal with ,all matters placed before it in accordJrance with the merits of the evidence submitted. , , . - ... Mr. Glover associated himself with Mr. Butler's remarks. / MINISTER'S REPLY. v In reply, the Minister said that he quite understood the importance that attached to the points that had been raised and the necessity of having the judicial machinery for dealing with disputes as good as it could be made. The Government had been considering the question of whether or hot it1 should not try to effect an improvement in the present machinery. For. one thing, the work had grown so much that it was an impossibility for the Court as at present constituted to cope with it. . That raised the question of whether there should not be a change and what change should be made. "I thoroughly agree with the principles which underlie the existing arbitration system," said Mr. Mason. "However, it is getting old now and the admiration one has for thos** who intro-. dticed it should not turn into mere ancestor worship and prohibit modification. The Government is concerned about the need for some improvement in the mechanism. It is easier to say that than to say exactly what ought to be done, because the question needs some constructive thought We will use our best endeavours to devise means of effecting improvements;" JUSTIFICATION FOR STRIKES. JVIr. Mason, referring to the question of workers and strikes, saia that strikes might be Instituted under great provocation, but he could not agree with the proposition that the existence of a strike showed that provocation was great: It was known that loyalty among workers might cause'.a-strike to spread "where the orierinal reason for it was j microscopic. "The proposition that every strike justifies itself cannot be admitted for a moment," Mr. Mason said. The Minister indicated that he was not going to comment at all on the particular case which had been mentioned. The question of whether or not something in the nature of an j appeal from decisions of th" Court should be brought into the system was quite an interesting one, and would be considered by the Government in try- j ing to devise some improvement in the j existing system. He said he agreed' very strongly that it was very import-] ant that there should be consistency! as between awards, and that theyi should be harmonious with one an-'j ■ -'Other.." :, ■■ .-.,■ ; '; ■'..•.' ' ".■'■'■■ i ' Commenting on allegations by Mr.J Butler-on the apparent impunity with which sections of the Press and others;