THE ARBITRATION COURT'S CRITICS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 299, 11 September 1908, Page 6

THE ARBITRATION COURT'S CRITICS.

<> The critics of the Arbitration Court's now policy are laying great stress upon the alleged fact that the automatic lapsing of an award in tho event of a strike may inflict hardships on the bulk of the workers in the affected industry. Wo do not admit the possibility of a real strike occurring without tho approval of tho Union concerned. Unions have power to inflict fines of £10 on men who disobey Union commands; they can just as easily placo _ upon their membors a ■ financial liability sufficiently heavy to keep them from striking; without official consent. Moreover, what hope wo'uld there be of a successful strike with tho Union opposed to it 1 If a Union considers the suspension of an award a thing to be guarded against, it can easily prevent the cause of such suspension. But oven if it wefe admitted that a sectional strike could take place without the connivance of the Union, the people who spoak of hardships as likely to be caused to tho bulk of the workers should give some indication of what those hardships are. It is all very well to speak vaguely of a Union suffering from the suspension, of an award duo to tho action of a small group of workers, but what hardships will fall upon - a Union that has exhibited, as a Union, and through its members, a proper spirit in its dealings with .tho employers? : v> One would suppose, from the" haste with which some critics have riished forth to exclaim that the Court should have considered all the ' consequences of its decision, that tho new clauses occurred to Judge Sim for tho first time at the moment when he dipped his pen in the ink-bottle to begin a new paragraph in the Southland award. Surely it is mbrc reasonable, to credit the Court with a good deal of careful reflection, spread over a considerable period, before it decided finally to bring into operation the policy that was gradually showing itself as an effectivo way of avoiding the injustices that have accumulated during tho past year. The critics seem to have overlooked the significance of the bracketing together of the new " suspension" clauses with the now well-established rule that a Union shall do all in its power to prevent a striko and Bhall be presumed to have encouraged the strike unless it proves the contrary. The Court has done no more than givo reality to a Union's responsibility for the acts of its members. The reservation of, power to restore the operation 'of a suspended award will enable the Court, in making the readjustment, to repair any injury that an innocent Union may have sufforcd. If, for example, the suspension of an award causes a slight decrease in wages, there seoms to be no reason why the Court, in restoring the award, may not make the restoration of award wages date from the day of suspension, if such a course seems desirable, as it might, indeed, bo desirablo if the striko was a sectional strike disapproved by the Union concerned. With such an inducement to control their members, however,the Unions should develop a quite unsuspected ability to keep their members under control. A contemporary which has been attacking the Court lately in a somewhat extravagant fashioD stated the case for an unfettered Court—and supplied the best, answer to its present contentions—a couple of months ago. Defining " the original plan of the Court" as " a Court of equity applied to varying circumstances," it continued:.— It [this plan] meets tho necessity of a dubious caso. . ; Wo can and do trust the Court. The Court fulfils its office not by relying on precedents, but by achioving the ond of industrial prosperity in ponce. As soon, therefore, as tho Court is limited by a definition of strikes, its'discretion is limited, and its hands may bo tied. The definition impedes its action. . . So that all the parade of the now Bill reaches this simple end j it decreases tho Court's authority, and it increases the difficulty of the Court's position. . . Tho New South Wales measure leavos tho whole field frco to tho discretion of tho Court, while aiding it by specifying a particular area of tho field. The Now Zoaland measuro confmos tho Court to a particular area of the field, and cramps its movement even within that area. Why? This is excellently put, and wo hope that our contemporary will remember its expressed opinions and assist in defending the authority of tho Court that works best when it refuses to bo guided always by precedents. Captain G. G. Smith is under a misapprehension ill stating that the order admitting colonial toys to ships of tho British Navy had not been cancelled. Captain Fyler, of 11.M.5. Encounter, wrote a letter to tho Navy League a few weeks ago stating distinctly that this regulation had been cancelled. l'oung men from ,18 years of ago upwards arc still admitted as seamen, stokers, etc., but that point was not raised in tho original announcement mado in these columns wb>jn quoting Captain Fylor'n Jotter! to tho licaguoi