The Press. FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 1907. THE NEW ARBITRATION ACT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12896, 30 August 1907, Page 6

The Press. FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 1907. THE NEW ARBITRATION ACT.

Mr Millar has redeemed his promise by bringing down an amendment of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act which is so sweeping in its nature that if it is carried it practically means nbolishing the New. Zealand system which has been held up to the world ac the Inst word in labour legislation, and substituting for it the Victorian syMem of Wagce Boards. That is the meaning of tho main provision in the new Bill which enacts that, after the passing of the Act no industrial dispute shall be referred to any Board of Conciliation nor to any Court in the first instance, but to an Industrial Council. This body is to consist of seven members, three engaged in the industry, and appointed by the Government .on the recommendation of the union, three who have been employers in the same industry, whose names hare been submitted to the Governor by the Employers' Association, and a president elected by the members. Practically, therefore, It will be a board of experts, although, probably In most cases an outsider will be chosen as the president. Instead of being a permanent body like the Arbitration Court or tho Conciliation Boards, it will only b<* called into existence when a dispute arises, and it will be dissolved when it baa made its award. Tho latter will have all the effect of an award by the present Arbitration Court, but either side may appeal against the Council's award

either on , law or the facts and the Court may make a new award which shall be binding. Another important new departure in the Bill is the pr> vision whereby proceedings may be taken before a Magistrate for enforcement of award, the Magistrate being .empowered to impose a fine not exceeding £100 in the caw of an industrial anion or industrial association of employers, and £10 in the case of workers. An appeal to the Arbitration Court in this case also is allowed, the latter's decision to be final. Additional power for the recovery of fines from workers ie given by a clause enabling employers on an order from the Inspector of Awards to deduct 25 per oent. of the "wages of their employees -wno have been- Sued until the amount owing to the Court it cleared. It is difficult to see, however, what effective result is to be gained from this provision or from the recent decision by the Appeal Court in regard to enforcing fines "by imprisonment in the case of a strike on anything like a comprehensive scale. In the first case the employer could hardly make any deduction from the wages of employees who refused to return to work, ami there is obviously a limit to the power of putting workers into prison for tho breach of an award by a quasi-civil tribunal. Another important amendment is the new definition of a worker as "any person of any age or of either "ser employed by any employer for "hire or reward in any industry."

Aβ we have remarked on a previous occasion, there is a good deal to be said in favour of the proposal to deal with each dispute as it arises by ai Board of experts. It appears to us a weak point in Mr Millar's Bill that h« evidently proposes to keep in operation the Arbitration Court as it now exists, with all its paraphernalia. It would be a strong argument in favour of the Industrial Council system if it diminished oxpenses, but if there are to be many appeals, and a large proportion of the cases have to be heard over again by the Court, it is obvious the expense will be increased instead of being lessened. If tho Industrial Councils were really fffoctive, there ought to be little or nothing for the Arbitration Court to do, and in that case it would be absurd to keep it going with all its machinery of assessors and so forth. Would it not be sufficient to allow an appeal to a Judge of the Supreme Court on questions of law alone, leaving tho Board of experts to decide ac to the facts, with which, ono would think, the* would be better qualified to deal than a Judge with no expert knowledge P We do not think the proposal of the Trades and Labour Council, that the recommendations of the present Conciliation Boards ehould bo given the foroo of an award, subject to the right of appeal, will generally commend itself. The Boards have, speaking generally, failed to secure the public confidence, and it is obvious that, as they are at present constituted, they are far inferior to the Board of experts proposed by the new Bill as a tribunal for settling delicate questions regarding the conduct of an industry, for the proper determination of which expert knowledge lie certainJjv desirable, if not actually essential. One of the beet features in the Bill is the provision that no person shall be qualified to be a union officer unless he has been or is engaged in the industry in connection with which the Union ie established. Much of the illfeeling which has occurred over the working of the Act in the past has been due to the intrusion or the professional agitator sowing discontent among workers who were perfectly satisfied with their condition until the professional dispute-promoter came along to disturb the harmony which previously prevailed. We think the House ought to be very careful how it further extends the definition of worker. The Act should be confined , in its operations to shops, factories, and other places where an industry is carried on for profit; it should not be allowed to invade the home. For this reason we do not think that domestic servants, and the handy men employed to look after the horses and gardens 01 private citizens enbuld be brought within its scope.' ' On vie other hand, we do not see how it is likely to benefit the community if ship masters, bank managers, and other responsible leaders of industry are to be dragged into the vortex of labour disputes and awards. We -are not sure whether it will be possible to give so important a measure the consideration it deserves, and pass it into law this session, seeing the large amount of other business to be dealt with. Perhaps it might be as well to refer it to the Labour Committeo in order that tho latter might take the evidence upon the probable effect of the proposals. The whole subject might then be dealt with either this session or next, with some knowledge of the direction in -which the proposals, if carried into law, might land ue? At present neither masters nor men seem to see very clearly what their effect is likely to be. On the whole, we think a good deal of it is decidedly in the right direction.