CONCILIATION OR ARBITRATION—WHICH ? A Sign of the Times.

Free Lance, Volume II, Issue 72, 16 November 1901, Page 8

CONCILIATION OR ARBITRATION—WHICH ? A Sign of the Times.

THE light to lefex a tiadc dispute dnect to the Aibitiation Couit without invoking the Conciliation Boaid at all pioduced (onsideiable debate and led to a stienuous conflict m both Houses of Paihanicnt a few weeks ago It was in no sense a party struggle If it had assumed that aspect there is little doubt the Government would have lesisted the intioduction of such dn amendment to their own Bill But it emanated from one of the most thoroughgoing of their own suppoiteis Mr Willis, of Wanganui and. thciefore. could be considered quite apait fiom party bias, and dealt with on its ments • • • Of couise it was stoutly opposed b\ a certain section of the Labour membeis, and the Government also did not want it In some quarters it was denounced as a crafty attempt to mutilate the Act by bunging the conciliation machinery into disuse However, the amendment commended itself to the sense of the House, and accordingly that Chamber affirmed, by a considerable majority, that either party to a dispute should have the right to carry it stiaight to the Arbitration Court if it so wished • ♦ * In the Legislative Council the proposition effected again some curious cleavages in party lines The Hon Messrs. Rigg and Jenkmson. as representatives of Labour were prepared to give this proposed change m the law no quaitei They saw mit only a smistei attempt to filch from the workers the real advantages of the Act The Hon Mr Lee Smith himself a large employer, joined hands with them Duectly the opposite view was taken by the Hon Messrs Pmkerton and Jennings, also strong Laboui representatives, and the Hon Mr Twomey, an cm ploy ci and pionounced supporter of the Government, adopted then line of aigument • • * The Minister of Education pleaded with the reformeis not to impaii the efficiency of the conciliation machineiy by making penlous innovations, but in the Council, just as in the House, the amendment triumphed, and ran through all its stage& Now, comes the sequel It was freely stated, both mside and outside Parliament, by that section of Labour which pins its faith to the Conciliation Boards, and looks upon them a-, the very Ark of the Covenant which must on no account be touched that the light to carry a

dispute stiaight to the Arbitration Court wa^ wanted only by the employeis, and that it waft dead against the mteiests of the woikeis * • • Well, what happens' News has ju»t come fiom Auckland, where a dispute exists in the shipping trade, that the Seamen s Union will probably exercise the newly-conferred ught of appealing direct to the Arbitration Couit, so as to obtain a colonial aw aid with special conditions to suit vaiying local conditions It is little inoie than a week since the change in the law was accomplished, and it is Labour itself that stretcher out the first hand to make use of it. The supporters of the amendment are therefore justified Henceforth, Conciliation Boards must be on their very best behaviour if they are to find any eniplovment at all * • * In the past they have wasted time most piodigally. and have achieved veiy little practical good If they amend their methods, strive to economise time, and reconcile labour disputes on fair and impartial lines leaning to neither side, they may do useful work still But. failing that, their occupation, like Othello s. is lrie\ocably gone