ARBITRATION UNDER FIRE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 318, 31 March 1928, Page 12

ARBITRATION UNDER FIRE

Criticism of Industrial Laws CONCILIATION IDEAL LOST SIGHT OF (From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Friday. CRITICISM of the Dominion’s industrial laws was continued for another day to-day when the National Industrial Conference concluded its preliminary sittings. The conference has adjourned until April 18. Papers read at to-day’s sitting indicated that the Arbitration Court is easier to attack than defend. Statements were delivered by Mr. H. H. Sterling on behalf of the dairy farming interests, by Mr. C. H. Williams, representing the sheepowners, Mr. R. M. Chadwick, for the freezing industry, and Mr. T. Bloodworth, who spoke on the danger of haphazard methods in the starting of industries. Mr. Sterling’s theme was to the effect that the original ideal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act had been departed from. Conciliation had been lost sight of, and arbitration, which should be in the background, now was the principal instrument.

“We have endeavoured to examine the problem essentially from the point of view of the Dominion as a whole,” said Mr. Sterling. “We commence at the point which seems to stand out clearly, and is quite beyond the realm of dispute, that there is a large measure of dissatisfaction with the working of the industrial machinery of this country. The dairy farmers feel that, as a result of interference under State regulation with the free operation of economic laws, they have had their expenditure increased to their disadvantage. Unquestionably there are a number of factors operating to bring about the present disadvantageous position of the farming community, and among these factors our people are firmly of the opinion that the operation of our industrial machinery as at present manifesting itself is a ma/erial one." Mr. Sterling said the sponsor of the Act, the Hon. William Pember Reeves, clearly regarded conciliation a£ the very essence of the scheme. With that principle the dairy farmers had no quarrel, but there had been a gradual subordination of the principle of conciliation to that of arbitration, until at the present moment the machinery prescribed in the conciliation sections of the Act has become more or less an empty formality, necessary to be gone through by the parties to enable them to use the machinery of the arbitration provisions of the Act in a manner and to an extent that was never originally contemplated. Rigid Settlements Obviously this had tended to make the settlement of industrial affairs rigid instead of elastic, but more particularly had interposed a third party between the essential parties in the settlement of the industrial affairs of the country. In other words, where the Act was designed to promote getting together the effect of the method of working that had gradually been evolved had had exactly the opposite tendency by putting a third party between those who onght to be in immediate contact. “We think the solution of our present trouble as far as the industrial question is concerned,” continued Mr. Sterling, “is to be found in our getting right back to the ideals of those who created the Act, and manifesting them in the practical affairs of our industrial life. These ideals are essentially practical of attainment. As Mr. Reeves clearly shows, the primary consideration is conciliation with (to use his own words) arbitration in the background. Is it not the duty of the State to make available to those who require it, machinery for the settlement of industrial difficulties? But essentially the intervention of a third party must be the last, instead of as at present, the first resort.” Lost Efficiency While admitting that conciliation and arbitration, with strict adherence To sound economic principles, could be made a success, Mr. C. H. Williams, of the Sheepowners' Federation, expressed the view that the Arbitration Court had the effect of discouraging efficiency, increasing production costs and the cost of living, accentuating -the difficulties of the primary producer, increasing industrial friction and leading to unemployment. Mr. Williams said a permanent bias against the employers was inevitable. “There appears to us no reason to doubt that with strict adherence to sound economic principles the system of industrial conciliation and arbitration can be made a success.” said Mr. Williams. “We attribute the lack of complete success in the past and the probability of breakdown in the future to a departure from sound economic principles, most of the more obvious faults of the system being traceable to that cause.” Mr. Williams set out at length what the sheepowners considered to be the more important and far-reaching defects in the present system. He mentioned that the sheepowners were not in any sense laying blame upon the worker for the undesirable conditions that had been mentioned. The worker took the law as he found it. "Put briefly,” said Mr. Williams, “we consider that while the Arbitration Act is by no means the only source of our present difficulties, it is largely responsible for them by reason of the following tendencies: (a) To discourage efficiency in the worker: (b) to increase cost of production and cost of living: (c) to accentuate the unfavourable economic position of the primary producer; (d) to increase rather than to lessen industrial friction: (e) to produce conditions leading directly to unemployment. “Against these objections we can find no corresponding advantage either to industry in general or to the worker in particular. Comparison with other countries proves that the Act has actually been a drag upon the upward tendency of wages in times of prosperity. It is merely owing to the fact that it has been a still greater drag upon efficiency that the worker is not in a better position than he is to-day.” Freezing Industry’s Effect That the freezing industry was inseparable from the farming industrv was emphasised by Mr. R. M. Chadwick, in a paper wesented to the industrial conference to-day. The former industry, it was stated, aimed not az reduced w ages, but at increased efficiency which was found impossible under the existing system. ‘ Ireez >hZ industry,” said Mr. Chadwick, “is essentially a sheltered

industry in that it can always pass on any increased costs, but it can only pass them on in one direction, and that is to the farmer. The latter is just as much affected by any increase in freezing industry costs as be is in the costs of his own industry. This fact is the clue to the attitude of the freezing industry in identifying itself with the farming interests. “It is necessary for the industry to point out the serious consequences which arise from a stoppage of work during the killing season and its effect upon the freezing companies, the primary producers and the employees themselves,” said Mr. Chadwick. “Under the present system the award under which the freezing companies are working provides ample safeguards for the ventilation of grievances without the necessity for ceasing or hindering work, but the workers by irritation tactics, go-slow policies, and strikes, foster a state of inefficiency brought about by a disregard of awards of the Arbitration Court, awards which in this industry at any rate the Court has been powerless to enforce. “The position is such that the employers are forced to seek some remedy whereby efficiency shall not be impaired. Various matters in this connection incidental to the freezing industry and of interest to this con ference will be ready for such committee which may be set up to deal with them, and it is trusted that the statements made and arguments that will be adduced will receive the consideration due to them, coming as they do from such a large industry as the freezing industry, which is included in the category of the largest employers of labour in the Dominion.” Capital and Efficiency “Under the present system.” said Mr. T. Bloodworth, a metnber of the Labour delegation, “there is no barrier, on the side of employers at least, to anyone who can find the capital necessary engaging in any industry. This, we think, is wrong and tends to keep the standard of 'fficiency low, and as we aim in these proposals to raise the status of each trade and industry, that freedom of entry, with consequent waste of capital, should cease. “As employers demand a certain standard of efficiency among employees, so employees have a right, although they have never hitherto exercised it, to demand a certain standard of efficiency among employers, and industry as a whole should now exercise that right. We suggest, therefore, that there should be a certain standard of efficiency set as a qualification for admission to the unions on both sides, and that only those who are admitted as members of the unions should be allowed to practise, either as employer or employee, in the industry concerned. “This idea, although new to industry, is not by any means unknown among us. In the profession of law or medicine or certain other professions one will find that barriers which we here propose for industry are already in existence. All we propose is in reality that the status of the industry shall be raised to that of those professions. Rules and standards cf admission would not be very stringent at first, but could gradually be raised from time to time by the consent of the industry. “It would be found that the quality of the work performed would improve. As the machinery of this scheme operated and as the work improved so would it be possible to raise tue standards of admission to the industry without injury to anyone. We believe that by this method ‘shoddy work’ would be eliminated, as it is usually the result of industry catering for the needs of a market that has never been educated to demand the best article that industry could produce.”