CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 227, 18 September 1908, Page 2

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

I'l'ltTiiEli DISCUSSION l.\ THE HOUSE. By Telegraph.— Press Association. .Wellington, East .Night. 11l Hie House oi liepreseiitatives today, tilic interrupted Ueoatc vn the motion to go into commutec on the ln-f dustrial Conciliation and Arbitration Kill was resumed by Air. Davcy, .who contended tihut tile Arbinauun Aci u.id been a great beaelit to tlie workers. A great deal of striking wJiich -liadS taken place had been engineered by! foreign malcontents. Keferring to re-l cent decisions of the Arbitration Court; especially to the new cuiuse in regard to suspending awards in case of strikes, this wised an important question, whether awards snould follow legislation or legislation tollow awards, lie contended t'litit no Court should have power to over-ride any cuuue ot express intention of Parliament. As to me failuie of the Court to make an award in the farm laborer.-!' dispute, thnt mis derogatory to tile dignity of the Court. An award should have been made, even if the Court declared the status tiu|oi should subsist. He approved the conciliation iiiadiinury provided .by the Hill, suggesting the appointment of practical men from the industrial world a« commissioners in preference to legally trained men.

Mr. Uonisby said it would be better not to have a lawyer as president of the Arbitration Court. Trade union* isfcj had suffered in the past by legal technicalities, and it would be muci beta- if a dispute were decided on equity and good conscience. -He thought unio-,lists should have power to classify themselves. Classification was indispensable, the present system being utt.-rly unfair to the superior workman. Air. Arnold said it was easy to make 'Suggestions, but not so eas'v to give practical eil'ect to them. Air. llornsby's suggestion lor clussilicatioa would result in chaos. If a superior workman did not get a fair show, that was! the fault of the employer, and not o£ tlie Court, which only iixed the mini-

mum wage. Not 10 per cent, of either workers or employers were in favor of repealing tin* law. The discontent with the Aet was due to the iiiierniinnble delays and Jack of finality under the system of Conciliation Boards, wliicli assuredly should lie abolished. ill-. Wilford contended t!lmt Conciliation Boards had been an utter failure, Their real function Juid been in the happy words of a critic to "stir up strife." There shou>d be no permanent conciliatioji commissioners as proposed, but a conciliation board of experts representing I,oth sides should be imni'ciiialcly caile i into being whenever a depute occurred. .Mr. Buddo held tint the arbitration system lutist be retained. As 10 tl.e allege.;. 'on 1 ' iduig the deK-rioivtM m of labor, and falling oft' in cilieieivy, le asserted tlmt the colonial workman compared favorably with the workmen of the Old Country, lie generally iupported the Bill, subject to some niinjr mmendnients to be made in commit* »e ill tile direction of ensuring that eonciliation councils shall be composed tf experts.

ill'. Sidev objected to the two-cuuri -ysteni. He felt tliflt Arbitration Courts should liave hud more power. One conciliation commissioner for eiiclT Island was inadequate. Magistral's should have been maintained as clwir men of. tile conciliation councils, > After the dinner adjournment the debate was continued by Mr. Lewis, who condemned the attempt to solve the labor problem by compulsory arbitration, it was, he said, akin to a:i endeavor to make water How up-hill. .Moreover, when labor was dissatisfied, with an award, what happened* If tlie Union were strong enough to inlluence elections the Government of the day, at its bidding, passed legislation lo over-ride the Courts award. It hud frequently been done' for unions; never for employers; and that fact bad shattered his faith ia the impartiality of those wlio administered t'ne system and prevented liini from assessing at any high value the proclamation of the integrity of the law, which must bo upheld, made from the platform by membera of the Government. Tkis interference with the Court meant Hint the worst feature of the American system was creeping into our administration.

Mr. Izard congratulated the Labor Jiil,ls Committee on the work it and done upon this' measure, which they had greatly improved, lie contended the Arbitration Act had in a large measure prevented strikes, and had generally improved the condition of the worker. Hi' believed in the principle of conciliation councils, but thought where there was a dispute, either side should be required to notify to tSi3 other the fact oi" naming of a referee; Tlie other side would tlicn appoint a referee, and the referees would appoint a chairman. This would ensure 'experts, combined with a promptitude of settlement. The conciliation council proposed would be a great deal more palataMe to workers than existing boards, which, for various reasons, had proved an absolute failure. Under the new system lie thought there would he yerv little reference to a court ot' arbitration, but two conciliation commissioners would not be nearly enough. There should be at least one 'for every industrial district to ensure prompt' settlement. lie tlikmght the iprovi-O relating to attachment for fines should Ik' made more elastic. A single iua:i keeping a mother or sisters s'fiould be allowed a. wider margin, and £2 a week was not enough for a single man to live upon.

| Mr; sdid there appeared to bo an extraordinary diU'orencc of opinion as to the nature of tlio law which should come between employer and worker with the unanimous agreement that some law of a sort was required. As to tire declaration that political interference degraded the Court, what had liolittled and injured the Court was the almse levelled at it by its capitalistic critics. He denksl thattlie Act had resulted in a weakeningof the moral fibre of the workers. Tlie contrary was the case. Mr. Whitman generally supported the Bill, but thought the numW of commissioners proposed was quite inadequate.

'Mr. Major generally supported the principle of arbitration, and argued that the condition of the workers°httd been greatly improved since 1894. Kvery 'honest worker recognised thw wns a good Bill. Mr. Hnnan supported the Bill, hut thought tilio jMrtics concerned should appoint a chairman of the conciliation councils instead of the Government' appointing permanent officials. Mr. .Millar, in reply, said it could not,.possibly lie asserted tlmt the Act 1111(1 been a failure. Under tlie Act tlie- [ condition of the workers had improved industries, which tad gone ahead, hi committee, he would ask them to in-, sert a clause giving the Government l power to appoint more than two vc'on'-i ciliation commissioners if circumstances required it. H« denied tlmt the clli-) cie-icy of the workers and declined, and 1 said there was no serious ground to" fear victimisation. No union wihich! tried to classify members would lasO five minutes.

The motion was agreed to. Tlih House then resolved itself into l committee wi the Bill. Onuses 1 and 2 were passed a* amended by the Labor Bills Commit - tei'. .In clause 3 verbal alterations |c niiike the aiding and abetting cl.mv operative in law was agreed to. Clause 4 \ias passed .with considerable verbal Amendments.