Arbitration

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26524, 12 September 1951, Page 6

Arbitration

There was so much good sense in Mr H. G. Kilpatrick’s comments on industrial arbitration (reported on Saturday) that it would be a pity if some of his remarks gave the impression that he believed the Arbitration Court to be controlled by the Government. The Court is, of course, indirectly influenced by the direction of the policy of any government, as are both employers and employees for that matter; but for many years judges and members of the Court have steadfastly preserved their judicial independence. It was unfortunate, therefore, that Mr Kilpatrick, by the use of the terms “ State-controlled strait-

“ jacket ’’ and “ Arbitration Court “straitjacket” might seem to support the ill-informed view, too common among rank-and-flle unionists, that the Court takes its orders from the Government of the day. The fact is that the Government does not, and should not, have any part in industrial negotiations unless either employers or employees, in defiance of*the law, seriously impair the well-being of the community. Mr Kilpatrick complained that State control of industrial relations had become much tighter in the last 20 years. It is worth recalling that one of the first actions of the Labour Government 15 years ago was to revise industrial law, and that all the amendments since have been made by Labour Governments. The intention behind all these amendments was to help the worker. Mr "Kilpatrick also upheld the right to strike. Again, it should be pointed out that any union can retain the legal right to strike by forgoing the advantages of the Arbitration Court. The overwhelming majority prefer the Court to the right to strike. He was right in saying that restrictive legislation does not pre-: vent all strikes. In practice, the restrictive legislation is seldom enforced; its value is chiefly moral. Although some of Mr Kilpatrick’s statements were not helpful, the real point of his argument was well worth making: that both employers anti union leaders should accept their responsibilities and not take the easy way by referring every

“ dispute ” to the Court. Both parties know fairly well What the Court will award, and they are in a much better position thah the Court to work out the details. By making their own agreement they will also avoid the frustration of unsuccessfu conciliation and delay, and probably mutual disappointment with some aspects of the Court’s decision. The Government, as Mr Kilpatrick suggested, can do something towards providing the atmosphere in which agreements can be reached. The establishment of industrial councils under the legislation of 1949 would help to bring home to both employers and employees the fact that their interests more often converge than diverge. Another reform worth serious consideration is the proposal of Dr. A. E. C. Hare that recourse to the

machinery of official conciliation and arbitration should not be permitted unless the parties can produce evidence that they have genuinely tried to reach a voluntary settlement. But, in the background, the Court ihust still be the author-

ity—independent of Government, employers and employees—that fixes standards on which agreements as well as awards can be made. As Dr. Hare has pointed out, the compulsory arbitration system in New Zealand conditions has an immense advantage over any other that can be conceived.