The Press. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1899. CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10265, 7 February 1899, Page 4

The Press. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1899. CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

We do not suppose anyone not hlinded with party feeling can say that our Conciliation and Arbitration Act has been a success. 11l making that statement it vs not necessary to' blame the framers of the Statute. - The intention of the frjuners was to provide a means of settling iabour disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration instead of by strikes and Iritkouts. It was never imagined for one moment that every trumpery dispute between an employer and his employees would be referred to the decision .of a Conciliation Board, and from the Board an appeal would be made to another tribunal. Nor did those who supported the Statute contemplate as possible what has occurred. We have had trumpery disputes referred to the Board, and appealed from to, the Court, and we have had the time ■of the Board and the Court taken up when there was no dispute at all. What has happened in some cases is something like the following. Some agitator, perhaps not connected with the trade in which the dispute is manufactured, sets about urging that certain demands should be made on the employers. After discussion these are formulated into a series of demands and sent to the employers. Those who send them know that they cannot be granted. They are referred to the Board, and that is termed a dispute. Nine-tenths of the nien employed will, if asked individually, say they have no complaints, but the "Union" has decided, and they go with the Union. Demands are sometimes made that it is known cannot be granted, and they.seem to be made with the idea that if much is asked- something will be given. Now this is altogether foreign to the idea that was held of a Conciliation system when it was. passed by the Parliament. It was thought that the system would only be used on rare occasions, and in the face of a crisis in a trade. But we have seen not a month pass without a "dispute* being manufactured, and men and employers being put to trouble and expense in fighting qfften absurd proposals. The worry and annoyance to the employers have been great, and we are not surprised at a bitter feeling being engendered where formerly peace and sympathy prevailed. The whole system has broken down, and it has been used not to promote good feeling in a trade but to foment discord and strife.

■ If the system is to remain and to do any good, some radical change will have

to be made in its use. The men that in some districts have been chosen to represent the/ Trades Unions have taken part in fomenting strife. One of them actually wanted to appear on behalf of a Trade Union, and at the same time to sit as one of the judges. To some of them the guineas given for attendance are' of moment, and the more disputes the more guineas. We do not see why the Government should pay the salaries of the members of the Board. Lot the Trade Unionists pay their representatives, and the employers theirs, and perhaps the disputes would not be so numerous. We also think that the members of the Board should neither be employers nor interested in industries, nor should they be members of Trade Unions. If impartial men were appointed, we might expect to see the decisions of the Conciliation Board more respected and fewer appeals to the Court.

Then we might expect to see the members of the Board better acquainted with what is passing in the industrial world elsewhere. Let us give two illustrations : One Board (Aucklant) determined that everyone in the boot trade must be apprenticed five years. We know that through machinery the old apprentice system has become useless. Lads can learn to use machines in six months. Why should these lads be prevented earning full wages until they have been five years in the trade, i)c in six or twelve months they have learned all they can learn? In Wellington the Board decided that moulders must undergo an apprenticeship of six years. We have asked some of the most expert moulders in the trade, aud they say some would not learn moulding in sixty years, but that a young man of brains can learn all that can be learned iii ordinary moulding' in three years or less. One moulder told us he earned the highest wages when he was nineteen— and had only been four years at the trade. Surely it is an absurdity to condemn a lad to six years' apprentice wages if, after three years, he can do journeyman's work.

Most Boards seem to think that cpnciliation means "splitting the difference." That is, if the Unions demand a certain wage or a certain number of hours, and the employers refuse, the Board usually give half or some other part of what the Unions ask. This has become so well known that the Trade Unions purposely claim more than they expect, and more than they know can be granted. The Board ought, when a change in any industry is demanded, whether by employers or employees, to cast the burden of proving that a change should be made on those seeking the change. If any trade has been conducted in peace for years, a certain rate of wages having been paid and a certain number of hours being fixed for labour, surely strong arguments and proofs ought to be' required before a change is made.

It seems to us the whole trouble in our industries has been caused by meddlesome men who do not realise what mischief their meddlesomeness may lead to. If there is a proper grievance, by all means let it be investigated, but these "pin prick" agitations must lead to evil. The employers have hitherto not been organised throughout the colony. If they were as well organised as the Trade Unionists, and as aggressive as some Unionists, we imagine that they would fare better under the Conciliation Board system.;. And after what has gone on during' the past few years we should not be surprised to see the employers organised and aiding each other in fighting improper demands. And if this happens, then tiie Conciliation system, instead of having brought peace will have brought war. The system, might be utilised when a strike or lock-out about some important dispute was imminent! Fortunately we have had no such disputes, and yeb our wrongly-called Conciliation Boards have been almost continually sitting. Can this perpetual annoyance to, industries be continued ? If it he, we cannot expect to see our industries progress or new industries started.