ARBITRATION ACTS

Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 89

ARBITRATION ACTS

INTERESTING COMPARISONS, (From Our Own Correspondent ;

WELINGTON. Febn.aiv 13,

Mr S. Broun, of the Now Zealand? Arbitration Court, who returned yestori'ay from a trip to Australia, states that the Now Zealand Arbitartion Act is immeasurably superior in many ways to the act they are endea\ouring to administer in New South Wales." We have a system of inspectorship in force in the Dominion," saya Mr Brown, " which has the- best of results, and these inspectors see that the awards of the court are carried out to the letter. The officials of the Labour Department institute most of the oases for breacho3 of award. It is open to the union affected to act (similarly, but it . ; 3 usually left to the inspectors, who are good men, and who know their business ard do >t in a straightforward manner without exercismg undue harshness." Mi Brown <!i ! no( caie to express a hasty dec*-,io.i with respect to arbitration in New South Wales, but he did not think it had Van en en a fair trial in that State. "Arbitration," he says, " cannot be considered a successful factor in our economical govern meni unless the men entrusted with its administration have a wide business and technical experience. But our experience m Aew Zealand has been that such people .are biassed one way or the other, and as the result of this we have be»-r. fo-ced to rely on ourselves. The exper:ence that both Mt Slater and myself have acquired in our business careers has always been at th.€ service of the court. Then we go further b\ personally and frequently visiting! factories and works to extend the scope o£ our understanding-, and this has been of immense help <o us in our deliberationsAnother source of trouble in New South' Wale« is that the court has gono bcjtnd it* poweis under the act, and has had .Is judgments appealed against. We have never had that in New Zealand. An attempt was made about seven y*ar« i\gc to upset a judgment of the Arbitration Court, but without success. As a matter of fact, ws have the powe» to go to the Appeal Court and ask for a decision where a doubt exists, so that really oui. judgments hava in some instances the strength of an Appeal Court hearing. Outside of the administration the great difference between the Newt South Wales and the New Zealand acts was that no attempt, had been made tc amend the evident defects of the former during the seven years of its existence. It had suffered from political influences. The Government, it seemed, had not stood by its act or its court as the Dominion had done by insisting that the dictum of the court fehoukl be upheld." Mr Brown summed up by saying that the New Zealand act had been fairly successful during the 12 years of its existence, and he believed there was now more confidence in it than there ever was before. While at Newcastle h< had long interviews with Judge Levdcn, of the New South Wales Arbitration Court, when the essential differences in the t\v< acts were discussed.