THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 September 1921, Page 4

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

The legal opinion given by Sir Francis Bell, as Attorney-Ganerul, relative to the position of mutters as regards the constitution of the Arbitration Court, consequent on Mr. McCullough’s resignation, appears to be perfectly sound and logical. Provision was made in the Act for the appointment of an acting-nomi-nated member of the Court so that it should be fully constituted in the event of the member elected by the workers “being unable, by reason of illness or other cause, to attend any sitting of the Court on the day fixed for the same.” It would seem no provision was made for the contingency of resignation, and that is what has happened. The position now is that, Mr. McCullough having resigned, the acting deputy cannot take his place because the elected representative is neither dead nor unable to attend the Court, so the only course is to accept the resignation and have another election. It is conceivable there may be objections to replacing the elected member when he thinks fit to resign, as it might happen that the personnel of the Court could be frequently changed by that process, and it is certainly desirable that as few changes as possible should arise owing to the functions of the Court being of such a nature as to need continuity of policy. While it is most de sirable- that the Court should possess the confidence of the workers, as a Court it should not be subject to resignations by way of protest. The members act in a judicial capacity, and shoulid jealously guard the great principles of British justice. It is no uncommon occurrence for the Judges of the Court of Appeal to differ in their judgments, and the rule of the majority deciding is observed. It would be reducing justice to a farce if the dissenting Judge resigned every time his judicial colleagues differed from him, and the same principle should hold good in the Arbitration Court. But is the Court constituted on right lines? We think not. It is asked to adjudicate upon disputes arising in a hundred and one trades, all more or less intricate, with the result that we have awards that would puzzle the proverbial Philadelphian lawyer; certainly they are not often understood by either the employers or employees. Far better to have courts constituted of a representative of both employers and employees in each trade affected, with a legal president, as we have now. This is the Canadian system, and works quite efficiently, and, what is of importance, disputes are dealt with immediately they arise. Here it is no uncommon thing for settlement of disputes to be held up for months because of the con gestion of the work of the Arbitration Court.