WHAT OF THE ARBITRATION COURT?

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 4, 20 January 1937, Page 6

WHAT OF THE ARBITRATION COURT?

While there are about the arrangement — it can scareely yet be ealled a settlement — made by the Minister with the men for the resumption of operations in the Auckland freexing works features that are not altogether reassuring, still il is distinctly to his credit that the conduct of the dispute has been shifted onto something like regular lines. In effecting this, however, he has raised another question that is of maj or importance. That is, as to the future attitude of the present Government, towards the Industrial Arbitration Court. In thq course of his persuasive addresses to the men Mr. Armstrqajg indicated pretty plainly, and not for the first time, that. he himself is tio very firm believer in it. In fact, it was as something of a boast the Ministei stated that, during his long career as secrefary of trade nniores, in nO case had he ever gone before the Coneiliation Council or the Arbitratioii Conrt. "AH\Vkys," he said, "I believed I could do better independently of these tribunals." As to fbe alternative metho4s he adhpted for securing a settlemeait of differences with employers he vouchsafed no informAtion. Iii ariy event, it is htot difficult to gather that Mr. Armstrong himself has no great affection for the Arbitration Court. Sinee he is the Mhiister chiefly concerned with it, this attitude is scareely oue that is likely to pnomote respect for the authority and. deeisions of the Court. When he goes further and says that,, "if certain things ane not adjusted, the Government may take a hand and remedy them," then he at once strikes at the foundation of the Court as an independent industrial tribunal and makes it subseryient to political considerations that rarely make for even-handed justice. All this seems to be a good deal at odds with the fact that, as Mr. Armstrong himself recalled to the men, "restoration, ' ' as he termed it, of the Arbitration Court was, little more than a year ago, made a very prominent plank in the Labour Party's election platform. What both employers and the great body of less militant trade nnionists must want to know, and are entitled to know, is whether the views that have been expressed by one Of its members a^e shared by Cabinet as a whole. Is it in contemplation that unless the Arbitration Court gives deeisions with which Cabinet, and the Minister of Labour in particular, entirely agrees, then either those deeisions are to be overridden or the Court is to be abolished altogether? Does the Government in this, as in not a few other respects, propose, now that it is secure in office, to jettison a plank which at the election helped very materially to give it thie big majority it commands in the House ? . These are questions to which authoritative answers should be given at once. This is especially the case when Mr. Armstrong told the men that if his bopes of securing a satisfactory settlement by negotiation with the companies were not fulfilled, then "you can take whatever action you like." What interpretation the men themselves are likely to place upon these words, should occasion unf ortunately arise, can hardly admit of much doubt. What employers as a body are entitled to know is whether the Government endorses them. Though the Labour Party has from time to time, to suit the political exigencies of the moment, assumed varying attitudes towards it, it may be said in a genefal way that the prinCiple of compulsory arbitration has operated fairly well in averting industrial strife. Its application was, during the depression, temporarily suspended by the National Government metely in the hope that by allowing more freedom of contract unempldyment wou'ld be reduced. What both employers and wotkers have now t6 fisk thetuselves is as to what is likely to take the place oi the Arbitration Court if it is to be abolished. Will it mean, as Under the Iiidustrial Efficiency Act, constitUting the Minister the sole court of appeal, or will it mean that immediate redourse to the strike as a me&ns of attaifting an end will be legalised?