Arbitration Under Test

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 705, 3 July 1929, Page 8

Arbitration Under Test

JUDGE TO VISIT AUSTRALIA MEW ZEALAND and Australia possess a sympathetic ii interest just now in seeking the more smooth running of their industrial machinery. Coincidentally with the projected visit to Australia of Judge Frazer to investigate industrial systems there, the Federal Government has decided to abolish the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and will stand or fall in public favour on that decision.

Judge Frazer, the president of the New Zealand Arbitration Court, will leave Wellington this week by the Marama for Sydney, at the request of the Government. His mission, as indicated by messages from Wellington, will be to investigate industrial systems in Australia and observe also the administration there of workers’ compensation. At first sight his visit might appear to be ill-timed, for it coincides with the extreme decision of the Bruce Government to abolish altogether the Federal Arbitration Court on account of the effective defiance of awards recently exercised by workers in certain key industries. But the Commonwealth in reality provides an interesting field of study for the industrial pacifist, because its troubles in the different groups over the past few years have been sufficient to test the strength of every part of its industrial machinery and to impart valuable lessons upon permanent peace-making methods. PRINCIPLE OF CONCILIATION

One of the strongest indictments brought against the Commonwealth Arbitration Court was its unavoidable overlapping with the industrial mechanism of the Australian States and the confusion which arose between conflicting awards. Its reputed incitement to class strife instead of harmony was also attacked by the employers. Instead of peace it brought a sword, they said. It made laws for one side of industry only. The Court’s decisions were enforceable upon the employers, but not upon the worker.

Endeavours were made last year to amend the system with a view to greater conciliation and less arbitrary settlement of disputes. Everything possible to prevent the overlapping of Federal and State jurisdictions was embodied in the amending Act, and the round-table conference principle was extended as far as constitutional limits would allow. Broadly it provided for the observance of awards by both parties under pain of heavily increased penalties, and gave to the general body of trade unionists control of their own organisations by means of a secret ballot upon all major issues.

So ineffective have been recent attempts to enforce even the revised Act that the Government has decreed

the abolition of the Court, and certain groups of employers also are attacking its soundness and relative futility. The court is defended strenuously by some noted writers, who recall that Australia, far from being a strikeridden country, as many of its own inhabitants imagine, is second only to New Zealand in showing the least time lost in strikes and lock-outs in proportion to the number of organised workers. So far as time lost in proportion to the population is concerned, Australia ranks fourth in strike severity among the eight nations for whom statistics are available. In comparison with America, moreover, it was indicated in recent research that the American trade unionist, in spite of his reputed conservatism, goes on strike more than twice as often as his Australian fellow. This, a noted economist claims, indicates at least the “genuineness of the effect of arbitration in modifying union tactics.”

COURT’S PURPOSE ENDORSED Another coincidence attending the visit to Australia of Judge Frazer is the fact that barely a year has passed since the whole arbitration system of New Zealand was carefully examined by the best experts in the Dominion at the National Industrial Conference, representing both sides of industry and the State. At that conference the New Zealand Arbitration Court was affirmed in principle by Capital and Labour alike. But the labour laws of the Dominion received a shock. Thirty years of achievement and errors produced divided opinions, and separate recommendations for the amendment of the Act were made to the Government — recommendations of which nothing has been heard of since.

Upon workers’ compensation—another phase of Judge Frazers investigations—the conference was unanimous in its desire for amendment. But here again, the recommendations have become dusty in the Ministerial pigeonholes. As examples of fellowship in industry, some parts of Australia will not impress the emissary from New Zealand. But Australia, by its experience, its vicissitudes and its achievements, doubtless holds much valuable material which could be used here for the more smooth working of New Zealand’s industrial laws.