The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1921. THE COURT AND THE UNIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 215, 9 September 1921, Page 4

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

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1921. THE COURT AND THE UNIONS.

For the ottuae that lacks aertatmnoe. For the wrong that need* reeiatano*, For the future in the dietmnoe, And the food th+t tew cam do.

At the beginning of this year Mr. Justice Frazcr took hig seat as President of the Arbitration Court with the good wishes of employers and employed. There was a universal feeling that the appointment was a good one, and satisfaction at the choice the Government had made wae increased by the decision that in future the position was not to be a stepping-stone to the ordinary Supreme Court Bench, but that the new President would hold the position permanently and give all his time to the work. It was widely realised that Mr. JusticeFrazer took office at a, juncture more difficult than any previous period in the history of the arbitration system. Labour, in welcoming him to the Court, recognised this. "Wo believe," said the spokesman of the unions in Auckland, "that you are thoroughly fitted to undertake the conditions and responsibilities of your office. Your difficulties will be enhanced by the fact that we are on the eve of great events. Labour in New Zealand ie expecting a time of falling prices." In view of the reception by the Alliance of Labour of the resignation of the unions , representative in the Court, it is worth while going back to this welcome in February. Then organised Labour not only had confidence in the new President, but was ready to recognise the special difficulties of his task. Now a conference of a large section of organised Labour, because Mr. Justice Frazer has framed an award of which it does not approve, calls on unions to refuse to nominate a successor to the assessor who has resigned.

We hope wiser counsels will prevail. A complete boycott of the Court by the unions would mean the end of the Court. A partial boycott might mean tho election of a workers' representative who did not carry much weight. We 'would ask unionists to think carefully before they make up their minds on this point. Do they want the work of the Court to continue, and if bo, do they want Labour to be well represented there? Let them consider what the arbitration system, of which the Court is the apex, has done for them, and ask themselves whether their class and the whole community will be any better off if the Court is destroyed and masters and men are thrown back on the old eystem of private bargaining. The arbitration system hitherto has not been tested by bad times. From the outset it was one of the contentions of the critics that it could be really well tested only in adversity, and it wae a common prediction that under such a test it would fail. New Zealand now has the opportunity of proving these prophets to be false. Prices have fallen or are falling, and economic conditions generally arc in a state <?f change. There must be many adjustments to that change. The question is, will thcee adjustments be made in a spirit of peace and co-operation or by means of the weapons of industrial war? If the choice is for co-operation and peace, then the machinery of arbitration should be preserved. The community will not come successfully through the difficult times of to-day and to-morrow if employers and employed fly at one another's throats. This is a time for courage, broad-mindedness, and a resolute facing of facts, and not for the entertainment of such absurd ideas as that contained in a recent resolution by a South Island industrial union that the Prese, Chambers of Commerce, Farmers' Unions, and the Government were making "determined efforts" to "bring about unemployment with the object of reducing wages." It is not in this spirit that the difficulties of the time will be overcome. Loyalty to the representatives of Labour is an excellent thing in principle, but we hope it will not be allowed to operate in the present case to the length of wrecking the Court. The difference between Mr. McCullough and his colleagues is a matter of opinion. They hold that the conditions of the sheepfarming industry constitute "extraordinary circumstances"; Mr. MoCullough does not. Iβ the difference so important that it justifies unions in refusing to nominate a successor?

We would repeat what we said yesterday about the unwisdom from the workers' point of view of preferring at a time like this, which to-morrow may be more unfavourable, private bargaining with the employers to negotiations under the aegis of the Court. There are eigne that there are employere who would be glad to be free from the obligation of going to the Court, free to deal with Labour at a time when, owing to unemployment, it will probably be lees powerful in defence and attack than it has been at any time since the arbitra-

tion eyatem wae established. Decisions of the Court are causing dissatisfaction among workers. Are they sure that if in their resentment they destroy thei Court, they will be as well off? Will they be as well protected when thrown on their own resources in time of depression as they would be with the Court for arbitrator? It looks as if a crisis in the history of the Court has arrived. We would urge unions, for the sake of their class and of the community, to ccc to it that this crisis docs not develop disastrously.