ARBITRATION IN AUSTRALIA.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 13, 16 January 1905, Page 3

ARBITRATION IN AUSTRALIA.

1 • 1 1 THE PRESENT TROUBLE. . 1 (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) • 1 CHRISTCHURCH, Sunday. ; Mr. H. Gullett, part proprietor of the . ! yydney "Daily Telegraph." who is visit- j I iiig New Zealand, and passed through i L'hristchureh on Friday, states that the ! principle of industrial arbitration in . I Australia ii ill a very critical condition I iat present. He blames the workers. In I conversation. With a reporter he said;: ithat they clamoured for the Arbitration I _^ c t i n >,'pw South Wales, and all went ' ; j well until the Court "oegan to give de- j j tisions against them. They refused to 1 | accept the adverse decisions, and strikes | ' resulted as at present. The employers, j 011 their part, zad accepted the Court's decision, nnd there had not been any j trouble from that side of Cue industrial j partnership. The Act was the Workers' | Act. vtt it was the workers who refused | to abide by its provisiuns. They ought io ! have accepted the Court's decision no • matter in what direction the awaid j wenl. It was not good for them to hold out or even to accept the position ' < in a disgruntling mood and with signs of . dissatisfaction. Tire employers had not j - done so. The Act must not be one- j sided. Asked as to the powers of en- j. forcement, he said that it was impos- ! siible to enforce lines against a large j ' number of men. They could not be sent , to gaol. It was not desirahle to take such a step, as the Act ought to operate without extreme measures being necessary. The workers evidently thought that the Act would be in their favour throughout, and they seemed to be surprised when decisions went against them. If the men held out in the present case, and defied the .Act, it would go to the wall, as the position of a' Court administering for only one side was impossible. He blamed the men, but not their leaders, who, he said, had endeavoured to induce them to accept all awards whether for them or against. He , added that in indnstrial disputes, as in ■ litigation, each side believed that it was in the right, and felt that when it did not get what it expected it was being treated unjustly, but that was no reason . why it should go in face of the decision j given.