The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. MONDAY, JULY 10, 1899. THE CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 161, 10 July 1899, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo.

MONDAY, JULY 10, 1899. THE CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the •wiong that needs .resistance, For the futnro in the distance, And the good that -we can do.

No statute passed in New Zealand of late years has been the subject of more discussion here and abroad than the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It was an experiment in legislation of a rather daring character, and even yet there is room for reasonable differences of opinion with regard to its success. Some of the opponents of the measure have written in the most denunciatory and distorted terms of the Act, declaring that there is no good thing in it. Others, while recognising certain merits in the statute, have become alarmed by the tendency shown to put its provisions into operation over small Among these conflicting voices it is instructive to hear the opinion of the representative of the largest labour-employing corporation in New Zealand, who has had more experience of the working of the Act than any other employer in the colony. In our Satur-

day's issue >ye published a report of an interview between a representative of the "Sydney Daily Telegraph" and Mr James Mills, managing director of the Union Steamship Company, in which that gentleman gave his views on the working of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The liberality of Mr Mills' views stands out in agreeable contrast to the narrowminded criticisms of some critics who have assumed to speak in the name of capital. Mr Mills said: —

"I think that this method of settlingdisputes is, on the whole, satisfactory. Under the operations of this Act the parties can meet together, and after a little discussion the strength of each ease can be pretty well judged. In the old mode parties could not properly understand each other, the result being that the differences between them multiplied, and any settlement was difficult to come at."

In response to the question —"Are employers generally in favour of the principle of the BijT?" Mr Mills stated: "Yes; I think, generally speaking, they are. Of course, it does happen that some employers fancy the Bill gives the greater chance to the men. Where many employers have lost, it has, I think, been owing to their having gone to the Board or the Court unprepared. But any feeling of one-sidedness against the Bill will, I think, die out in time, and the machinery of the Act will be generally accepted as a fair and expeditious means of arriving at a settlement in industrial disputes."

It may be admitted at once that there has been a disposition in some instances to invoke the statute without adequate need; on the other hand, it should be remembered that for many years little grievances have existed between emploj'ers and employed which were sufficient to produce friction without there being any means of applying 'a remedy, or, as Mr Mills remarked, of ascertaining fully and fairly each others' views. Naturally the passing of an enactment like the one under- notice led to the airing of a crop of these grievances, but the Conciliation Boards have, on the whole, dealt with them in a commonsense way, and in course of time both parties will probably, as Mr Mills predicts, settle down amicably under the law. This, at any rate, is greatly to be desired, and it behoves those who administer the Act, and those who avail themselves of it, to adopt such a reasonable attitude as will avert any risk of a breakdown in its machinery, which possesses great potency for good if rightly used.

It is instructive to compare notes between the acceptance of the New Zealand law above referred to and a large measure affecting the relations of employers and employed passed a year or two ago in England. We allude to the "Workmen's Compensation Act." The Hon. J. Chamberlain, author of this measure, in a letter dated the 15th May last, says: —

"In the iirst place, the variety and complexity of our manufacturing industries make it absolutely impossible beforehand to provide by legislation for every conceivable case, and hence it was certain that in the new Act, as in all previous Acts dealing with the subject, there would be a certain number of exceptional accidents in regard to which liability can only be determined by a judge. What, however, we endeavoured to do was to make these cases as few as possible and make the necessary litigation as cheap as possible. In both respects we have fully succeeded, as the last returns show that although tens of thousands of accidents have been compensated, only a little more than 160 cases have been disputed in any court. The average cost of deciding these cases has been less than half those which are still annually litigated under the old Act, and this although that Act did not deal with more than a fraction of the cases which are now satisfactorily settled by the new. It was never pretended by the authors of the Act that amendments might not be necessary after a full experience had been had, but in the meantime you may honestly claim that this legislation is the most beneficial to the working classes which has ever been proposed or carried since the grant of free education."

A law based on the English statute is now under the consideration of our own Parliament.