IS ARBITRATION COURT USEFUL?

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 47, 18 May 1927, Page 3

IS ARBITRATION COURT USEFUL?

BUSINESS MEN IN DOUBT “LOUDER VOICE WINS” WHETHER or not the Arbitration Court has outgrown its usefulness is a question which occupied the attention of members at yesterday’s council meeting of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. Mr. H. T. Merritt was responsible for the question coming before the meeting. He suggested it in a letter written to the Chamber prior to his departure for England. “The crying need of the country is lower costs of production, and the Arbitration Court stands as a direct bulwark against any attempts in this direction,” was another trenchant statement contained in Mr. Merritt’s epistle. He further contended that the preferential clause was only a bogey in most cases and that the employer was the best judge of who should be employed. Two remedies were given, either the repeal of the Court or drastic amendments to its constitution, including the abolition of the present system of workers’ and employers’ representatives and the creating of a court of three independent judges. If the Court was abolished Mr. Merritt suggested the fixation of a minimum wage for adult workers, such as had been successfully instituted in British Columbia. “Constant dropping will wear away a stone,” said the president, Mr. Lunn, “and it is impossible for a judge not to have some bias upon the question when he is constantly hearing the same arguments. The loudest voice must eventually have some influence.” That was as far as the Chamber was prepared to go, however, and the matter was referred to a special committee.