ARBITRATION ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 4 November 1931, Page 6

ARBITRATION ACT

RESTICTIONS ON INDUSTRY,

EMPLOYERS’ VIEWS

AMENDMENT ADVOCATED.

Comments on the restrictive conditions imposed on industry by -the operation- of the industry awards and agreements in force!today were made by Mr. A. 0. Mitchell, president of the New -Zealand Employers’ Federation,, at the annual meeting at Wellington on Friday! 1 '■ •' “A- suspension by legislation of the. whole of the awards in the Dominion to-day with the exception of the fixing df.ytlie length—hut not the actual Ildars—of the working day and minimum rates of pay has been advocated by some employers as a partial solution of the problem, and as an alternative to the possibility of further wage and salary .cuts.' Others again advocate the repeal of the I.C. A. Act and the abolition. ■of the Arbitration Court,” Mr Mitchell said.

LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE. The first suggestion would involve legislative interference Avitli: awards of the court made in the j, fesiercise upon i-t by Act of Parliament, and so long as the Act remains on the Statute Book I do not think, .such a course should he justified! on the grounds. of- expediency-The court itself has no power to . vary an during its , currency, /- and. I do . not think it would be proper for, .the legislature:—'without an' amendment "of the original Act—to .do so. “The second alternative- is not exposed to the same moral objection since it is competent for the Parliament of the country to repeal or amend any existing legislation. There are, however, many serious objections to the repeal of the Act and the abolition of the court, although there, is a. considerable body of thoughtful and humane employers who would to prepared to g© even as far as that.

AMENDMENT OF ACT. The considered opinion of this federation, ,which was arrived at after the serious consideration of rue/, whole., question by the employers’ representatives at the National Industrial Conference held in 1928, and endorsed on . numerous . occasions since that tame by practically the, whole of our affiliated organisations,' advisory board and Dominion executive, is in favour of an amendment of the I.C. and A. x\ct providing for the abolition of the automatic reference of all disputes from the Conciliation Council to the Arbitration Court and substituting a provision making it mandatory to deal with all industrial disputes in Conciliation Council, but reference to the court to he subject to the mutual agreement of the assessors for both sides. These views were represented ■'to-//the: Government in 1928—again" m - 1929 and 1930—hut so far Parliament lm,s not passed legislation to give effect to these recommendations. Every day merely emphasises the wisdom of the recommendations auo the necessity for their adoption by Parliament. '‘The advantage of such a scheme s obvious to all who are prepared to take an unbiased view of the matter. Under the present system the tendency :s for each side to submit claims an<l counter-proposals of an exaggerated nature embodying demands which thy rer’ise quite well the other side could not possibly agree to, with the idea of having something up their sleeves for negotiation and compromise, neither side greatly concerned in arriving rt a settlement knowing that after the “sham fight” round the Conciliation table the dispute is passed on automatically to the Arbitration Court.

SETTLEMENTS BY CONCILIATION. “If the consent of both sets of assessors. was' necessary (•/> ©insure the referenceJpf the dispute to the court, the assessing;' would assemble and discuss thepw)posa!s B with some sense ot responsibility, and" I- venture to suggest that in the great majority of cases they could, and would, arrive at a mutually satisfactory settlement embodying • workable conditions agreed upon by experts hi the particular industry under consideration. Each s'de would of necessity recognise its responsibility in arriving at a complete settlement; the employer, in order to ensure a continuance of the same' cordial relations between his workers and hhnself which happily exists in most industries to-day, and the worker—in his own interest—in order to retain ail reasonable privileges enjoyed under existing awards, but which 'in the event of a failure to arrive at a settlement round the Conciliation table would be lost to him. { *As the result of many years’ experience as an assessor I have no hesitation hi expressing the opinion that tlie prospect of arriving at complete ail'd ' mutually satisfactory agreements by negotiation on the above basis with our own workers would be materially strengthened. It is interesting to note that in presenting his supplementary IBudget proposals to Parliament a fortnight ago the Minister of Finance indicated the intention of the Government to submit for the consideration of Parliament legislation on the tines indicated above.”