WELLINGTON NEWS

Hokitika Guardian, 14 March 1932, Page 6

WELLINGTON NEWS

i THE ARBITRATION LAW. (Special Correspondent). WELLINGTON, March 12. The proposed recasting by the Government of the Industrial Conciliation and '.Arbitration Act is bound to give rise to a great deal of acrimonious discussion in and out of Parliament. This .measure is at once a political, as well as an economic subject, and in its economic aspect it affects the whole community without exception. The proposed basis of the amending Bill is “compulsory conciliation, and optional arbitration - ’ which are more or less contradictory terms. The original Act was passed when the Hoii. W. I’. Reeves, now Chairman of the National Bank of New Zealand in London, was Minister of Labour, and the late Mr E. Tregear was the first Under-Secretary of Labour The purpose- of the original Act was undoubtedly good and suited the then conditions. The Act became operative in 1893 or 1894, after the great maritime strike. From about 1891 to 1897, New (T’alnnd and -Australia were- suffering from a severe slump, and those who can cast- their memories back -to those days 'will recall the collapse of a great number of banks in Australia. It wa s then considered necessary and desirable to avoid strikes and lock-outs, employers and employees should be provided with machinery that would compel them to come together and settle -their troubles. Since the original Act was placed on -the -Statute Book, innumerable amendments have, more or less, disfigured it, for these amendments, as a general rule, wore obtained from successive Governments, anxious -to placate Labour and secure the Labour vote fin this way but when it. felt strong enough it retained those' votes for itself and there emerged the Political -'Labour Party. Used politically the Act has proved vicious, it has raised an army of Labour politicians, not that that is something to be condemned, and’also an army of Labour advocates and Labour bosses, and both parties go before the Court now to see how much they can squeeze out of the Court and -thus the original intention of the. Act has been lost. The Court's decisions have been mostly in the nature of compromises, consequently in the matter of wages the Labour advocates in the dispute ask more than they know they will get, and the other side names a jlow wage, and the -Court cuts in between and compromises. The standard of living, and the cost of living, introduced in recent years have complicu-tea the position. Now quite a number of individuals have vested interests in the Court, ; for their -sustenance depends upon it, hence opposition to amendments of the Act i s bound to be strenuous and prolonged. A good many employers believe in the system of compulsory arbitration, and as some of 'them have beeu working under the system -their views are entitled to serious consideration. New Zealand was the first to introduce the 'system, ;and if it was as good ns many believe'it to be, it i s somewhat singular that no other country that we know of except Australia has adopted it. Experts from other countries have visited New Zealand to investigate the system but- not one has found it .advisable to recommend it to his own country. Now it is proposed to recast the system, and it is questionable whether the scheme suggested is good. Ihe aim of all such legislation should be to cultivate co-operation between employer and employee, and co-operation embodies the golden rule of give and take. At present each side strives to get the better of the other and therefore there is constant friction. One of the best suggestions for dealing with Arbitration laws -was offered by the Lconomic Commission -which visited Australia a few years back at the invitation oi the Federal Government. Thq 'Commission suggested that if it was politically inconvenient to abolish the Act, it should be amended in the direction of developing conciliation. In furtherance of this the Commission suggested the retention of the Arbitration Court under a Judge alone-, but the Judge should have certain arbitrary powers. For instance it was suggested that he should lmvu tile power to co-operative the services ot a competent man from each side to assist him with vecluiicaliltes. Ihe cliiet -power that they wished the Judge to have was the right to refuse arbitration, until he was fully and completely satisfied that the parties had tried every means of conciliation. When the parties reached an agreement at the Round T able Conference, the agreement could be laid before the Judge who could then make it an order oi the Court and enioicvable. That in outline seems to be ; more just to both parties and to Die community. After a time the Hound Table spirit would develop.