Industrial Disputes

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23741, 12 September 1942, Page 4

Industrial Disputes

The constitution' of the National Emergency Disputes Board, announced this week under new Industrial Disputes Emergency Regulations, is a measure which calls ‘for some .explanation by thq Minister of Labour. The obvious ..fact that it is intended to provide for the prompt and certain settlement of industrial disputes can hardly be supposed to explain it, because that purpose, it seems, has been effectually provided for already. No clear reason appears, for instance, why the Minister has thought it necessary to add’to the machinery established by the Strikes and Lockout Emergency Regulations (1939) and amendments and by the Coal Mines Council Regulations (1940) To take the first set of regulations as amended in February of this year, they provide for the establishment at any time, or from time to time, of an Emergency Disputes Committee with large and final powers to decide a dispute and give directions accordingly. Where an industry works under an award or agreement providing for an industrial disputes committee, this committee is normally to be the one to act; but if “for any “reason," the Minister thinks this an undesirable procedure, or if the committee fails to agree, then he may refer the dispute to an Emergency Disputes Committee, In the coal-mining industry, the Coal Mines Council is officially authorised to secure the settlement of disputes. The particular advantage of the procedure sketched above is that a dispute will in general go to an established body, well placed and qualified to deal with it; but if not, then to a special body, an Emergency Disputes Committee, appointed for the purpose and chosen, it must be assumed, to ensure its possessing expert qualifications. There is no need, at the moment, to discuss the dubious question whether the Minister's power to take a dispute out of the hands of the established body and pass it to the special body, “for “ any reason " which he may or may not choose to explain, is an excessive and dangerous one. The National Emergency Disputes Board, though it is to hold office only “ during the Minister’s “pleasure,” is nevertheless to be considered as a permanent body. That is, in dealing with a wide variety of disputes in a wide variety of industries, as it may, it will have to act without the advantage of the specialised knowledge applicable to the case; and the disadvantage is a serious one. Most disputes involve technical rather than general issues; it is particularly important that decisions should be reached quickly; and the fact that the board is armed with quite extraordinary powers makes it essential that no question of its competence to decide and to enforce a decision should be raised. The board’s decisions are final and binding; it may give “reasonable “ and necessary ” directions to make them effective; and, if any decision conflicts with an award or agreement, the board’s decision is to prevail. It is in this last respect that the board is more heavily armed than an Emergency Disputes Committee; and it may be argued, reasonably, that conditions justify the extension of power to set aside or vary an award from the Minister

of Labour to such a body. But it is difficult to understand why it could not have been extended to Emergency Disputes Committees without a further change of procedure, which appears to be at best unnecessary and, for the reasons given, undesirable."