THE ARBITRATION COURT

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12483, 20 April 1906, Page 4

THE ARBITRATION COURT

AN ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT. DISSATISFIED LABOUR DELEGATES. After devoting a great deal of time and attention to suggested amendments of the Arbitration Act yesterday, the Labour Conference reached a motrion on the Order Paper sent forward by the Wellington Trades and Labour Council, relating to the personnel of the Arbitration Court itself. Mr D. McLaren (Wellington) moved: 'That this Conference has no confidence in the Arbitration Court as at present constituted." He eaid he was not present at the meeting of the Wellington Trades' and Labour Council when this remit was drafted, and he did not altogether like the wording of it; but he thought it wae the conviction of a very large number of trades unionists, that the Court as it was now constituted was noo satisfactory. He was uot in favour of rushing into trouble by urging strikes or lockouts, but at the tame time he objected to any method that wae going to tie the hands of workers so that they could not defend themselves. He thought the parties to a dispute should be encouraged to settle it among themselves, and he held the conviction the settlement of disputes would bo facilitated if the parties appointed tho'r own assessors. Lookiug at the award!* given for tome time past, tlho Court !had evidently been attempting something that it was not called upon to do at all, and that was to give awards on theoretic grounds. The secretary of the Seamen's Union in Wellington had stated that the Court gave decisions bhat were against the weight of evidence. Ho, JKimself, knew of instances i» -which the Court gave its judgment without considering the evidence at all, and without reference to the evidence of either .party in the dispute. He couiii go into detailed particulars to prove the validity of ihis statement. He believed the Court had for some time past given its awards on abstract grounds. It was seeking to cay tih-at, as far as employers and employees were concerned, the industries of the colony should bo regulated in such and such a fashion. He submitted that the Arbitration Court was not called upon to settle the economic problem of the State: that was the function of Parliament.

Mr D. H. Hampton (Wellington) eeoonded the motion, far the reason, that he was dissatisfied ■with the decisions given by tine- Court during the pact twelve months. They were told that they imiet molt diiouss a Judjgo of the Supreme Oourb, but if they took the Chief Justice as an. example, they found they were qutbe justified in what tJbey were doing. Sir Robert Stout freely critacked the highest Court m the laud when he disagreed with dt, and the Conference was quite justified in attacking so insignificajit a person as tihe President of the Arbitration. Court. Ho was the man who held tihe administration' of the Act in the hollow of his hand. Mr Brown would stick to the demands of tihe employers, and Mr Slater would stand by the demands of/ the workers. Jhie created a deadlock, and the President was able to take the matter into his own hands, end give a decision without regard to the evidence of either party. He knew of oases where employers and the men were practically agreed, and the judge went back on the whole matter. Further, there were oaeee brought for the enforcement of the Act, and the President had gone Back on precedent, juetice, and equity right ■ throughout, had ignored the evadence, and given a decision according to his own sweet will. Messrs Westbrook (Hawke'e Bay) and Cannington (Nelson) supported the motion.

The "Chairman (Mr W. Hood) ifnderstood the motion as one of no confidence in tho per&ommeJ of the Court, and not in the Court- iteelf, as appeared to be indicated in tho remarks of previous speakers. He had hoped tho debate would proceed on such, lines, and he had been disappointed. There was a tremendous amount of power left in the hands of the president, -which he was at liberty to exercise as ho pleased. With some former presidents the administration of the Act ihad been very satisfactory. Under them the Act had been fairly and wisely administered, but on several occasions since they found , that the judge had given erratic decisions and awards. There was no denying tie fact that the majority of the awards given by the present president wer? very unßa.tisfiactory» con ~ tarined elements of an exceedingly disquieting character. The amount of interpretation of awards required was becoming interminable. Mr Justice Chapman had tho reputation of being an eminent lawyer, and: ho (the chairman) had not the slightest doubt of it, but he seemed to be more interested in making Laws than in administering them. He did not think M,r Justice Chapman was qualified to arbitrate in an industrial dispute. Ho was an admirable roan, and a clever man, and one they could all look up to and reepect very highly in another sphere of life. In making this criticism <jf the Arbitration Court ho ]iad ins much reverence for the Court as anyone, but he (submitted he was perfectly entitled! to challenge •Mγ Justice Chapman's decisions, and he intended to do «o. As to the employers' repref-cntativc, lie was saturated with tho iintorestii> of thosn he represented. On tho other hand, they had a representative of labour who was one ot the finest fellows living outside the Court, but inside ho was very weak. The Arbitration Court had been in existence for ten years, and they had always had a representative -who was a weak man. They really did not know how evente might have shaped themselves if they had had another representative. He did not epeak disparagingly of Mr Slater, but they should certainly try what could be done with eomeone else in he position. They were condemning the Arbitration Act without having tried it thoroughly. At present Labour was overweighted in the Court.

Mr Barr (Canterbury) objected that thus matter should have finst been dealt with by the respective Councils. He objected to anyone coming there and expressing an opinion on this important matter without the authorify of his Council.

The Chairman: It ie the opinion of the Canferenco that we ere taking now. Mr Barr: The opinion of the Conference is the opinion of the united body of workers throughout the colony. Mr R. Breen (Otago) said there war, no disguising tho fact that the motion was practically an attack on the President of the Arbitration Court. He did not think they had any reason to compLain .of the employers' representative, Aβ they thoroughly understood that he was there to look after the interests of the employers. So far as their own representative was concerned, he had been selected two years ago by that Conference and reoomroemied to the Unions for re-election. Mr Slater was the same to-day ac he was then, and therefore the Conference should have no reason to complain of him. He thought the proper course would be for the Conference to petition for tho removal of the present president of the Court, and perhaps it would be better to adopt the suggestion of a southern Union that the Government should be asked to promote Mr

Justice Chapman to the Supreme Court | Bench. There wae no doubt about the ability or the honesty of Mr Justice Chapman, but it was questionable whether he was fitted for the presidency of .the Arbitration Court. He might ; be more euocasßful in a higher sphere. Mr Breen added that he intended to oppose the motion. Mr J. T. Paul (Otago) said that the weakness of the constitution of the Court was the personality and the power of the president. Had they been, able to keep Mr Justice Williams in that position the history of Arbitration in labour disputes would have beeo eomewhat different. It was imperative that both the workers and/ the employers should have confidence in the personnel of the Court, otherwise either eide would be found objeoting to its awards. He intended to say at once that he was not prepared to go back on the constitution of the Court. It seemed to him that although they had had several rebuffs, the time had not yet arrived, when they should say to the Arbitration Court, "Get out!" He, for one, was prepared to give the Arbitration Court * further farial. Ho did not think it fair to' make* disparaging remarks concerning Mr Slater, and ho ■was not going to do> so. But he considered that the labour representative on the Court should have the whole economic question at his fingers ends, and that if he dissented from the finding: of the Court lie should also be ready with a minority decision, in which he showed wherein the decision of the majority of the Court was unsound end unfair. He was quite satisfied that it had been unsound and unfair in many cases, and that it had often been against the weight of ovidenee. But to take the step the Wellington delegates asked the Conferenoe to take would be wrong, and that tho time had not'yet arrived when they should disoen<*> with the Court. He candidly admitted, however, that the Court could be improved upon. If the present president .Mas allowed to remain where he was the end of arbitration in New Zealand was not far off. He did not wish to say a word against Mr Justice Chapman. It was not within the province of the Conference to vilify him or to say anything against his sense of justice. He supposed Air Justice Chapman did what he conscientiously believed to be the right thing, but the point was that* he did not do the right thing. Many cases of unfairnees could be cited. It wae a fact that Arbitration Court awards to-day were less intelligible than they were at «ny time in the history of the Court. There were . more applications for interpretation than ever, and they were getting too much law and too littfo justice. (Hear, hear.) Mr Paul went on to instance a dispute in the South where a certain number of employers had been cited. The President of the Court decided that all the employers throughout the district should bo cited, numbering over 100. When the award came out it was proved that it did not touch many of these employers at all. The union had been put to a lot of expense at the direction of the Court to cite employers who were not affected by the award. Mr A. Rosser (Auckland) opposed tho motion, because he was satisfied that whatever the fallings of the Arbitration Act, nothing had been put before the Conference that afternoon worthy of taking its place. Mr M'Laren had endeavoured to show that he had something to put in the place of the Arbitration Court, but what he proposed was not very clear. There had been a great deal of solicitude shown that afternoon for the promotion of Mr Justice Chapman, and he (Mr Rosser) had little cause to thank him for many of hia decisions. They muet, however, weigh tho benefits against the drawbacks to arbitration, and he felt with Mr Breen and Mr Paul, that they ought, to give it a further trial.. (Hear, hear). The motion was then pnt to the Conference, when it wae lout; those voting for it being Messre,Moore, M.Laren, Hampton, Love and Oooper; against: Messrs Barr, Gohns, Oannington, Patz, Breen, Paul, Wallace, Roeser Collins, Westbrook end Thorn.