Arbitration System

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 357, 18 May 1928, Page 13

Arbitration System

ARGUMENTS ON COMPULSION Workers and Employees State Views (From Our Resident Reporter.) WELLINGTON, To-day. BEFORE adopting the two reports of the special committee of the National Industrial Conference, the views of both sections were stated by speakers at a full sitting of the conference. Further arguments for and against compulsory arbitration were advanced at to-day s sitting.

Mr. Tom Blooft worth moved the adoption of the reports, Mr. W. J. Poison seconding, and agreeing with Mr. Bloodworth that it was a great disappointment that a unanimous report had not been presented. He was an optimist, and still believed that if their minds were set to it they could come to a settlement. If a satisfactory conclusion were come to he believed there would be industrial peace for a quarter of a century. After a short discussion the reports were adopted. It was resolved that it be a suggestion from the conference that representatives of parties concerned in the Factories Act and Shops and Offices Act meet and discuss such amendments, which they deemed advisable to those Acts, with a view to making joint representations to the Government. Placing before the conference the employers’ recommendations for an amendment to the I.C.A. Act, Mr. T. O. Bishop expressed the opinion that the Arbitration Act was an attempt to do the impossible. The whole of the clauses of the report had been framed with the object of substituting optional for compulsory arbitration, and protecting those organisations which had grown up under the compulsory system, and might find themselves in difficulty if that protection were taken from them. Mr. J. Roberts, dealing with the question of national registration of disputes, said that before this could be done it was essential that there should be a plebiscite of the workers concerned. Jf the provision was not made for such a plebiscite, the workers would not be receiving fair play. On the subject of compulsory registration of disputes, Mr. Roberts said that this appeared to be in opposition to the employers’ proposal for optional reference of a dispute to the court. Compulsory registration would be all very well if there were compulsory arbitration. TAKING THE PLUNGE Mr. Bloodworth said it was all very well for Mr. Bishop to appeal to the workers’ representatives to “take the plunge,” but he would point out that there were some labour organisations which had not yet learned how to swim. In other countries the employers were asking for the compulsory settlement of disputes, and he could not understand the reversal of opinion on the part of the New Zealand employers. Mr. J. Tucker said the optional system had failed in America and he was sure it would fail here. Mr. H. YVorrall contended that if an independent tribunal were to examine the two papers under review a verdict would be given in favour of Labour’s paper as being the more likely to attain the objective of the conference. If there were no unemployed in New Zealand to-day he questioned whether the same proposals would have been advanced by the employers. If the employers desired peace in industry what objection could they have to that final appeal board, the Arbitration Court? Professor Belshaw, of Auckland, suggested that the question whether Arbitration should be compulsory or optional should be left to the decision of the majority of workers and employers concerned in each particular industry. Mr. P. Cornwell regarded the employers’ proposals as an attack on the v hole of the working conditions which workers had been successful in attaining by negotiation and with the assistance of the Court. It was suggested that employers wanted to stir up trouble before the election. MAKE HASTE SLOWLY Mr. H. E. S. Turner thought that the employers would be wise if they made haste slowly.

Mr. J. Churchhouse said the workers were not prepared to do away with the Arbitration Court till something better took Its place. Mr. H. D. Acland said the primary producers had always been strongly opposed to compulsion. Professor Belshaw thought that, despite the breakdown, the conference had had achieved some results. He believed that the majority of workers favoured compulsion. It was a tragedy that the Conference had found it impossible to reach unanimity on such a vital question, because, if optional arbitration was going to be enforced on those not wanting it, there would be a danger of the whole system being wrecked. Mr. A. Bromley agreed with Professor Belshaw. REPORT TO PRIME MINISTER The report which the employers’ representatives will submit to the Prime Minister this afternoon states that it is a matter of very great regret to all delegates that it has been found impossible to present a joint recommendation. The employers’ sole desire is to improve the system of arbitration, so that industries may develop on sound economic lines, thus improving the position of the workers as well as the employers. The opinion is strongly expressed that any further extension in the practice of the arbitration system to primary industries is impracticable and unwise. Mr. Tom Bloodworth, speaking as chairman of the special sub-commit-tee, said Professor Belshaw’s proposal had been very carefully considered, but it had been felt that no machinery existed for securing the opinion of industry as to whether arbitration should be compulsory or optional. If employers favoured the optional system and employees favoured compulsion, there would be an immediate deadlock. There was also the danger that agreements reached under compulsion would have a big influence on optional agreements and he did not think the two systems would work satisfactorily side by side. Mr. E. Kennedy expressed the opinion there was no possibility of industrial peace in New Zealand and Mr. J. S. Jessep said he was listening to some of the closing speeches of the conference with sadness. Pie would like to appeal to the other side to recognise, when they disbanded, that the absolute necessity of getting efficiency in industry was the factor influencing the desire of the employers to get industry away from the hard and fast jurisdiction of the court. Mr. J. Roberts, replying to the debate, regretted they had not come to an agreement. The only thing to do was to pass the proposals on to Parliament.