ARBITRATION BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 27 October 1927, Page 1

ARBITRATION BILL

OBJECTIONS OE EMPLOYEIIS. WELLINGTON, Oct. 25. Four reasons are given by the .Advisory Board of tbe Employers’ Federation for its opposition te the proposed alteration of the constitution of the Arbitration Court—lack of suitable arbitrators, lack of provision for continuity of policy, danger from irresponsible arbitrators and the impossibility of the Court doing its work in the time available. Interviewed on the subject of Cue Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Rill, the secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation (Mr T. O. Bishop) said that there had not yet been sufficient opportunity for the Federation thoroughly to consider the whole Bill, but the Advisory Board was unanimously and strongly opposed to the proposed alterations to the constitution of the Court for four reasons.

“Experience of Conciliation Councils and Disputes’ Committees has shown that it is exceedingly difficult to obtain successful arbitrators,” saiil Air Bisliop. “The qualities which go to make a successful arbitrator are many, and are rarely found in business men. Anyone engaged in the management of an industry selected for the purpose of framing an award for that industry must inevitably be guided by his own individual experience of that particular trade, and will not be guided by any consideration of the effect of his decision upon other industries. He will he intensely partisan and anxious to make a good showing in the eyes of those engaged in his own trade by whom lie was appointed. It will bo even more difficult to obtain arbitrators representing the workers, because the reasons making it difficult- in the case of employers will be even more apparent is the case of workers.

“The greatest objection to the present- constitution of the Court (a Judge anil two permanent assessors) is that advocacy does not cease with the presentation of the cases in open

Court. The elective members of the Court are themselves advocates, and instead of sitting with a Judge as a. tribunal to adjudicate upon the cases presented to them they carry on the fight for their respective sides until the award is finally made. Therefore, in many cases awards are obvious compromises and lack judicial Quality.

“The effect of this weakness of the ild system has been minimised by the fact that assessors have been appoint-

ed Inr a term of three years and in most eases have held office for long-

er periods, and because the assessors havc acted in all industries instead of only one. These compensating features of tbe old constitution will be entirely removed, however, if the present- Bill becomes law, and the partisanship of members of tbe Court instead of being mitigated will be intensified enormously. "Secondly, there will be no continuity of policy or uniformity in awards, and no relationship between awards for different industries, because although the Judge will act in all eases lie will be only the mouthpiece in eases where the arbitrators reach an agreement.

“Thirdly, slioltered industries, with arbitraters appointed for one case only, and having no responsibilty of office, there will be serious danger of the arbitrators agreeing upon terms opposed to the public interest. “The fourth reason,” concluded the speaker, ’’is that the proposal is utterly impracticable because of the extra time which the Court would require to get through its work under the proposed constitution. At present six or eifflit cases may l>e, and often are. heard at one session in Auckland. Wellington. Christchurch, and Dunedin. As soon as they are heard the Court moves on, and at night, while hearing cases in another place, or while travelling, the members of the Court discuss the cases they have heard, and the awards are made and sent, hack for filing. Under the new proposal each case must be dealt with and the award made before another is begun, so as to literate the arbitrators It is obvious that if six or eight cases have to he heard in one centre with as many different sets of arbitrators all new to their work the Court will have to remain there until nil the awards are made and the time taken will greatly exceed that now required. In fact, it will not he possible f or the Court to get through anything like the amount of work- it now does.