The Times TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1944. Tribunal for Railwaymen

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 66, 21 March 1944, Page 4

The Times TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1944. Tribunal for Railwaymen

Legislation is to be introduced by the Government this session establishing a new principle in its relations with railwaymen which may have far-reaching consequences for the. whole of the Government employees throughout the Dominion.

Advice received by railwaymen from the Prime Minister in regard to the legislation proposed declares that a special tribunal will be established on the lines of the Arbitration Court, to which the four railwaymen’s organisations will in future submit their claims. This procedure will replace that of the past when negotiations for a variance of conditions were discussed by the Minister of Railways and his Department on the one hand and the railwaymen’s representatives on the other.

The change of method can be brought about only under special statutory authorities. Powers now vested in the Governor-in-Council are to be transferred to a tribunal. That means that a delegation of authority is to be made. The tribunal to be estab lished will have mandatory powers, so that its decisions will be carried out by the Department, subject to the Stabilisation Regulations and the approval of the Stabilisation Commission. Under war conditions this is quite right.

Prom a practical poiiit of view considerable interest must attach to the personnel of such a tribunal. Very largely the change will be judged as sound or otherwise by the nominees appointed to the essential tribunal.

In view of the fact that this body will operate on the lines of the Arbitration Court, the question arises as to why that Court could not have undertaken the task of adjudicating upon the railwaymen’s demands? It may be that the Arbitration Court is already an overworked body. Another question that arises is this: Will the hearings before the tribunal be open as are those of the Arbitration Court ? Certainly public interest will be involved to just as great a degree on the railwaymen’s case and the railway services as it would be in the case of any other body of men and the service they render which might come before the Arbitration Court.

When any action is taken there is almost invariably some reason for it. The proposal to establish a tribunal endowed with special statutory authorities and one to be set up as a permanent institution in the national life has now to be considered in that light. Has the Government come to this decision to avoid political complications? The statement is not intended to raise a “political issue” in the ordinary sense of the term. Rather is it the idea to deal with principles of government.

Consider that the men concerned are servants of the Government, whilst at the same time that Government is the servant of all citizens, including the railwaymen. And again, these men, as electors, largely determine who shall provide the Government of the country. Those factors altogether provide a rather tangled skein.

The proposal now put forward by the Prime Minister appeals as a proper one upon the assumption that truly independent assessors shall be appointed to the tribunal and thereby an impartial adjudication will be made between the employees of a State service and the Government which is responsible for the management of such a service.

Then if it be right and proper to employ this tribunal principle in the case of railway workers, it would be equally right and proper to Utilise the same method in the ease of any or all other public servants. Doubtless if the first experience of the railwaymen proves satisfactory, other public servants would request the same arrangement. Likewise, on the part of the public the idea would be supported.

For a long period there has been a state of acute dissatisfaction manifest in our railway service—the biggest State enterprise in New Zealand. It is to the high credit of the men concerned that they have carried out their duties during a period when they must have felt acute provocation. Never did they go-slow or stage a strike. Apparently they possess a loyalty to their service and to their country that might well have been taken as a shining example by other workers whose rewards have been so much richer, whose work is equally essential and who yet have shown such a spirit of irresponsibility. Earnestly is it to be hoped that an amicable settlement will shortly be made with this most loyal body of public servants.