THE CONCILIATION BOARD.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 233, 25 June 1908, Page 6

THE CONCILIATION BOARD.

, : —^ There is not a little pathos in the impertinence of the " memorandum" attached by' the Wellington Conciliation Board to its recommendation in the tailors' dispiitb, particulars of which wo printed yesterday. . This luckless body, whose failure to act up to its title has been one of'the main causes of the -dis-> credit into which the oxisting machinory of conciliation: lias fallen; is threatened with extinction. That docs not, however, appear to it to be a reason why-it should not. show the public that the Arbitration Court has no monopoly of tho powor to brighten up its awards with obiter dicta. In the caso of the Arbitration Court,, the critical memoranda were rendered necessary by the'failure of Parliament to make proper provision for the maintenance of industrial justice, or even to respect the independence of the Court. By passing 'an Act that established the bank-to-bank principle, Parliament over-rode a section of tho award governing tho Denniston coal-miners. The Court raised no objection against the vicious, principle of Parliamentary interference with tho decisions of a tribunal specially designed to adjudicate in industrial, disputes, and invested with a completo autonomy that was in itself a confession of thf importance of leaving its decisions unhampered. What the Court did object to was such-inter-ference with one clause of an award as would render unjust other dependent clauses. In other words, the Court, which had based its scalo of wages on its scale of hours, contended that the hours should , not be altered while the wages wore left untouched. Accordingly a memorandum was attached to the next coal-mines award—that delivered in the Granity dispute—notifying the parties that the Court reserved tho right of modifying its award when any Parliamentary .alteration of it required a corresponding alteration to keep justico oh an even lrec.l. The other critical memorandum was that in which the Court laid down the principle that in any strike there would be a presumption of complicity on tho part gf tho union concerned, which [ would be-hold guilty, of an offcnco under

tho 1905 Act unless it produced evidenco of innocence.

In both these caseß the Court's action was not only proper, but actually necessary. The Conciliation Board was in a very different position. Owing to their dissatisfaction with the methods of the Board, and especially with the methods of one of its members, and owing also to the hopelessness of expecting from the unions a genuine, attempt to' settle disputes in a spirit of real conciliation, tho employers docidcd that they would no longer assist the farce of " conciliation," and would not appear before tho Board excepting under.compulsion. The Board had power to compel the attendance of tho employers in the tailors' dispute, but it preferred not to exercise its power. Very wisely, since that would result in a saving of time and money. But by adopting this policy of expediency, tho Board surrendered its right to utter a word of comment upon its recommendations. Let us suppose that the Board had. determined upon a full exercise of its functions, and had compelled tho attendance of'tho employers. In such a case it might very properly have' laid down, in the dispassionate language used by the Court, certain general principles governing the subjects of the law that it assists to carry out. There was no excuse whatever for the outburst against " the settled policy of the employers to boycott the Board," or for the observation that it is " not a little romarkable that the workers only should be accused of disloyalty to the Act." ' Thus to charge employers with " disloyalty " to the Act is an intolerable impertinence. When complaint is made of tho disloyalty of some of the workers, tho complainants mean that the workers have actually broken the Act, and that their disobedience is peculiarly objectionable for its evidence of ingratitude and moral unfairness. Is thore any suggestion that those employers who save their own time and tho country's money by absenting themselves from tho farce of a bogus "conciliation" have broken the law? There most certainly' is no such suggestion. The Wellington Conciliation Board and the wholo system of conciliation havo thoroughly earned tho position that they occupy in tho estimation of sensible employers and in the estimation also of tho Minister for Labour himself. Wo havo given 1 the Board's impertinence this . notice, not because it is worth while wasting indignation on the opinions of a body that seems to be about to disappear, but because the expression of those opinions was calculated to assist in the attempt that is being made in some quarters to prejudico/the claim of the employer to consideration in any future amendments of tho law.