“RETAIN THE COURT”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 187, 28 October 1927, Page 1

“RETAIN THE COURT”

Last Word Has Not Been Said on Arbitration Amendment

OPPOSITION ON ALL SIDES

(THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Thursday. IT is clear that the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, which is now before Parliament, is universally viewed in the light of “nobody’s baby.” Nobody has a good word for it; it lies in the arms of the Government —unwanted and unloved.

rrHE Bill has pleased no party; it has 1 gladdened the heart of no section of the community. In Parliamentary 'circles it is as coldly received. The popular outcry against the Bill has been traced to all corners of the Legislature. and in addition to the open hostility which the Labour Party displayed when the suggested alteration in the constitution of the Arbitration Court was revealed, some members of the Reform Party feel so strongly against it that they might be expected to let the Government down on a vote upon the merits of the proposed legislation in its present form. VIGOROUS DEFENCE Chiefly the agitation is coming from Without the House, however, and the possibility of the ultimate abolition of the Court —which has suggested itself to both bosses and men as a result of this Bill —has sent all sides of industry flying to a vigorous defence of the Arbitration system. All previous censure on the operations of the Court has been forgotten, and there is a distinct indication that the united cry of Capital and Labour will be: “Retain the Court.” The question that has suggested itself in the Parliamentary lobbies is: Whither are the employers and the men driving? And the answer appears with gratifying promptitude: Toward the same objective! It is believed around the building

■ that the opposition to the I.C. and A. . Bill has been so uniform that its ultimate effect will be to force employer and eanployee together to decide what L is really wanted. Once it has been . determined what is required, then will \ it be for them to approach the Minis- ' ter for Labour, the Hpri. G. J. Anderson, with a tangible proposal as an alternative to the Bill as it has been presented to the House. | CONFERENCE POSSIBLE l Alteration in the constitution of the ■ Court was asked for; that is estab- . lished. It is equally obvious that the change that is proposed to be effected does not meet the universal desire. ( Now it rests with those concerned to , determine what is the nature of the ' alterations sought and present a united request. Gossip in the lobbies . persists in suggesting that very little \ persuasion would be required to or- , ganise a conference of both sides with a view to formulating a concrete proposal. It seems likely that there will be - an Industrial Conciliation and Arbitrai tlon Act of 1927—although no time - may be lost at this late hour in the session—but what form the measure . will assume is more than the Parliamentary speculator can prophesy at , the moment. j In its present form the Bill will l create too much strife to warrant the Government forcing it through with- , out amendment. EMPLOYERS’ VIEWS UNANIMITY AT WANGANUI OPPOSITION TO CHANGES Press Association. WANGANUI, To-day. The executive of the Wanganui Employers’ Association strongly and unanimously opposes the proposed alteration to the constitution of th.e Arbitration Court, for the following reasons: (1) The difficulty of securing suitable arbitrators. (2) The lack of continuity of policy which would arise from there being separate members of the court to deal with each case. (3) The danger of public interest being entirely ignored. (4) The impossibility of the court getting through the work under the proposed constitution. A member of the executive of the local association was appointed to attend the sitting of the Labour Bills Committee in Wellington. ABOLITION OPPOSED • ECONOMIST ON COURT ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS’ ATTITUDE Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, To-day. The constitution of the Arbitration Court was discussed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce. Some speakers urged that the court’s awards were responsible for the curtailment of output, that the preference to unionists should be abolished, and that payment should be by results. At the close of the discussion a committee of five, Including the president, w-as appointed to bring down a report on Monday on the following motion: “That the conference does not support the abolition of the court, at the same time it considers an amendment is called for, and in particular the question demands consideration whether a court of three independent members, one of whom should be an economist of note, is not likely to give more satisfactory results than the existing constitution of the court.”