CONFERENCE AN OPEN DOOR

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 359, 21 May 1928, Page 1

CONFERENCE AN OPEN DOOR

IS ARBITRATION SOLUTION IN SIGHT?

WORKERS TAKEN BY SURPRISE 'ttTHILE it was too much to hope that unanimity could be secured between employer and worker on the general qaestioii of compulsory or voluntary arbitration, there is a belief among certain industrialists that, as a result of the -Sational Industrial Conference just concluded at Wellington, a workable system of arbitration will be evolved when the Government frames legislation amending the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

This belief is shared by Hr. Belshaw of Auckland, who gave expert economic evidence at the conference, and who does not anticipate a complete agreement between the two sections of industry on the principle of option or compulsion. He suggested this morning, however, that the authorities, in amending the arbitration law, might frame a system which would embrace both optional and compulsory reference to the court. Mr. T. Bloodworth, who represented the workers' viewpoint, and who presided over the special committee; of the conference, asserts that the employees’ proposals, as finally submitted, contained suggestions for such a system. These proposals were not acceptable to the employers, however. Mr. Bloodworth adds that the employers' endeavour to secure voluntary arbitration was a complete surprise to the workers. THE GENERAL GOOD All delegates were agreed upon the general good which the conference is likely to produce, and said the ultimate effect rather than the immediate accomplishments would be the most fruitful outcome of the deliberations. Th, 3 conference was the open door to better relationship. Dr. Belshaw mentioned that although the employers fought for optional arbitration and the workers for compulsion, some of the employers were willing to agree to compulsion, and conversely, a number of the unions showed an inclination toward giving the optional system a trial. "There might be difficulties which I cannot see at th© moment.” Dr. Belshaw went on, but I think a system applying both ideas would work. As it was the employers suggested that one type of union should be on the compulsory basis. I think that some of th© larger unions might express a willingness to apply the principle of option; but if it fails, they will, of course, revert to their original claims.” COMPLETE SURPRISE

Hr. Belshaw thought the way was now open for a better means of approaching industrial disputes and for better relationship. Mr. Bloodworth mentioned that the

work of the National Conference had not been completely executed, in so far as th© employers did not have an opportunity of placing their final papers before the special committee, while the workers’ completed case was considered. He felt that if the Government desired further investigation of the position, every member of the special committee would be willing to meet again. “It was a complete surprise to the workers to find that the employers proposed optional arbitration,” he said, “because it was such a reversal of the view that had been expressed by them all along. Their paper was not read until the beginning of the second session, and the workers had no opportunity of submitting it to the unions, or of discussing it. EMPLOYERS DESIRED CHANGE “It is well to remember that on this occasion it was the employers, and not the workers, who sought amendments to the arbitration system. The workers’ proposals did not contain suggested amendments of the present Arbitration Act, although there was the basis for an alternative system of arbitration by industrial councils. “I say now that the workers’ paper as finally submitted contains all that the employers have asked for—namely, optional reference, and elasticity in awards. It also contains provision for reaching finality in industrial disputes by reference to an independent tribunal for final settlement. This now appears to be the fundamental principle to which the employ-

ers object.” The employers' proposals were such a reversal of their former views, and involved such a risk of serious industrial dispute in the event of a nonsettlement by an independent tribunal, that the workers, in view of the present state of industrial organisation, could not agree. “Even if the employers’ proposals were adopted now,” added Mr. Bloodworth, in a final word on the general good of the conference, “the amendment to the Act would be a very different one to that proposed last session. On the general questions before it the conference has accomplished a decided advance on anything that has been suggested in this country before.”