Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1923. ARBITRATION LAWS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLIII, Issue 9826, 20 March 1923, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1923. ARBITRATION LAWS.

If one were to judge by certain merely superficial statements, tlie system of compulsory arbitration in industry is in disfavour in other parts of the world. ’ A cablegram yesterday stated that the Norwegian Parliament, by a large majority, had rejected the Radicals’ proposal for continuing the compulsory industrial and arbitration law. On the bare . statement it is impossible to offer any conjecture as to what is really at stake in Norway. Some months ago, General J. C. Smuts, Premier of the Union of Sputh Africa, described the arbitration system in Australia and New Zealand as a “ghastly failure” —-far too sweeping a statement. In the first place, there has all along been a considerable difference . in the scope of arbitration and its effectiveness as between Australia and New Zealand. Here it has existed longer, been more generally availed of, been more free from political interference, and failed less often in strike prevention than in Australia. It would indeed have been a very perfect system whicli would have preserved an unbroken industrial peace throughout the economic upset which the war brought to us and has left in an accentuated form as its heritage. We may have fared badly under compulsory arbitration, but the question is whether we might not have been worse off without it. No one can dogmatise on this point. But a survey of other countries, including South Africa, suggests that industrial strife has been less rancorous and relatively less widespread in New Zealand than in those countries not possessed of a permanent system of arbitration. If the Court and the system _ were sentenced to death, what then? It would be ludicrous to suppose that industrial peace would be served or that the step would make for common well-being. The sane course is to endeavour to improve the system, and there is room for improvement. Many employers and workers agree that the practice of having two permanent assessors associated with the judge

does not make for the efficiency desired. Awards often would be more acceptable, both, to employers and employed, if in each case skilled assessors, drawn from the industries concerned, were appointed. Assessors inevitably would be partisans,, but partisans personally conversant with every detail of the industries affected are infinitely to be preferred to professional assessors who frequently have no intimate knowledge of the .case being argued. Such a change certainly would not hamper, and probably would aid, a further much-needed improvement —the giving of more elasticity to the conditions of many awards. The conditions which the Court, from the evidence produced, often imposes are so restrictive in effect that they make for inefficiency both in the business and in the workers. They limit the power of the employer to improve the. economic conduct of his business, curtail output, and often degrade craftsmanship to soul-destroying routine which breeds unrest anc kills initiative.