H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1927 A WEAK JUDGMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 8 December 1927, Page 4

H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1927 A WEAK JUDGMENT

JpROM the cable news that has come through to us to-day it will be seen that the Australian watersiders’ strike has been called off, and that a general resumption of shipping activities at all ports may be expected to take early effect. In itself the bare announcement of this may be accepted as matter for congratulation not only in the Commonwealth, but in the Dominion also, for it was quite certain that a maintenance of the position would very shortly have reacted badly upon New Zealand. Apart from this view of the case, however, there would appear to be some aspects of the temporary settlement —for that, of course, is all that it is—which do not look as satisfactory so far as the basic principles involved are concerned. It would seem that this settlement is the outcome of a pronouncement by Judge Beeby of the Arbitration Court, with regard to which, on one most important point, the messages received are somewhat at variance. An overnight cable states that the watersiders were to "return to work on the present award conditions, including two ‘pick-ups’,’’ pending further consideration of their case. The tenor of subsequent messages, however, shows that this condition was subject to a very material modification.

The existing award, which operates, or should operate, throughout the Commonwealth, provides for the owners being entitled to make two "calls” daily for labour, one in the morning and one at midday. It would appear, however, that while this right was exercised at some of the ports at others the owners, in order to avert trouble such as has now taken place, had allowed the practice to arise of making only the morning call. They had never formally surrendered the right to insist upon the full observance of this part of the award, but had at certain ports let it fall into disuse. What they have now been pressing for is a full compliance everywhere with the award in all its bearings, including this right to make two daily calls. Judge Beeby, however, would seem to have ruled that in this respect the practice which had virtually been forced upon the owners by the refusal of the men to abide by the award in this, as in several other things, should supersede the award and be continued pending his further examination into the whole question. As the owners contend, there appears to be a manifest weakness in the attitude which the Court has thus adopted. The. owners, in their own interests primarily. no doubt, but also incidentally in the obvious interests

of the public, have been fighting to have the sanctity of the Court’s award established and maintained. That has been the solid plank on which they have taken their stand throughout, and it was certainly to have been expected that the author of the award would lend them his support. Instead of this, he has seemingly given a decision which for the time being confirms local variations of the award that had been compelled upon the owners by the “direct action” which he himself in other ways condemns. There is so manifest an inconsistency in this that it does not require any elaboration. To put it shortly, Judge Beeby, if the cabled word has been interpreted aright, has not only condoned the past violation of his award, but has consented to its continuance. From this point of view it would seem that not; only the owners but the public also, who are very profoundly concerned in the maintenance or the Court’s authority, have good ground for complaint. The owners would seem to have reason on their side, too, when they em phasise their objection on the ground that the decision was reached without their being given opportunity to lay their case before the Court. The weakness ’of the decision goes further even than merely affording encouragement to the men to pursue the same course again in the way of defying the Court’s awards. It is also very obvious that this interim decision must act prejudicially on the judge’s own freedom in the consideration of the question for the future. His present hasty concession to the men must necessarily make it much moie difficult hereafter for him and for the owners to insist on response to two calls should he, after the investigations he has promised, decide again that the owners should be entitled to them. Judge Beeby would seem to have made a great point of requiring full recognition of the Court’s authority, but he would seem at the same time to have himself done a good deal to undermine it. The mere fact that the committee of the Watersiders’ Federation expie~ses satisfaction and claims that the men have ‘won their point regarding one pickup,” is quite sufficient evidence of this. There is in Australia just now a very strong set in more than one quarter against the principle of compulsory arbitration when it results only in compliance when it suits one of the parties to comply, and Judge Beeby’s latest decision is not likely to assist in quelling the attacks on the system.