THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1926. A REASONABLE REQUEST.

Wairarapa Age, 4 February 1927, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1926. A REASONABLE REQUEST.

In deciding to ask for an amendment of the law which will enable farmers to be represented effectively in the Arbitration Court when that tribunal is dealing with cases in which producers are vitally concerned, the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union took a step that all who look fairly at the merits of the matter are bound to approve and commend. It is the worst weakness of the system of industrial arbitration as it has developed in this country that it makes no full provision for consideration of all tke interests involved when wages claims are up for consideration. The Court hears employees and employers, but the public, to whom additional costs are passed on automatically in the shape of increased prices, more often than not is left out in the cold. Theoretically, the presid-' ing Judge is supposed to watch over and safeguard the interests of the general public, but no one who has followed the proceedings of the Court over a period of years can doubt that its decisions represent in the main an attempt to hold the scales fairly as between the workers and employers actually represented in each case. The weaknesses and shortcomings of the system under which the Court is operating are made glaringly apparent by the obstacles raised to the effective farmers in the freez ing workers’ dispute. The question raised has in itself nothing to do with the detail merits of this dispute, and the opinion expressed by rhe Dominion President of the Farmers’ Union (Mr. Polson) that producers are being denied the hearing to which they are entitled certainly should not be regarded as attempt to influence the Court. The whole question is whether farmers should be given a full hearing in cases of this kind before the Court formulates its decision. The request for such a hearing is on the face of it reasonable. Farmers argue justly that th", freezing companies cited as one main party in the dispute about to be heard are really only intermediaries acting on behalf of the producers. It is the latter who will have to pJPy any increase in freezing charges, and their claim to be heard surely, in these circumstances, should be regarded as valid. The resolution passed by the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union implies, however, an acceptance of the view that in the existing state of the law farmers cannot obtain an effective hearing in such a dispute. What is asked for is an amendment of the law that will enable them to be heard in cases of the kind. Any detail and incomplete treatment of the question of granting representation to third parties in the Arbitration Court obviously must be expected to create difficulties and give rise to anomalies. This, however, does not mean that Parliament is entitled to set aside such a claim as the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union has advanced. It means rather that Parliament should seriously consider whether the system of industrial arbitration can be expected to stand unless full and comprehensive provision is made for the representatiou of vthird parties in Arbitration Court proceedings.