The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1921. UNDERMINING ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 299, 12 September 1921, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1921. UNDERMINING ARBITRATION.

Taking account only of the merits of the case,■ the concerted attack that is now being' made upon the Arbitration Court by certain Labour organisations in various parts of the Dominion might be regarded ’ lightly. The resolution of the Alliance of Labour Conference, with which the chorus opened, and others which have followed, all alike bear the mark of concerted action taken with , little regard for the plain facts of the situation. The Alliance of Labour resolution, for instance, accused the Court of breaking an agreement into 'which, in point of fact, it had never entered. If plain equity ruled, the agitation would collapse with an admission by the Labour organisations concerned that they have levelled accusations against the Court which cannot bo sustained. We showed in an earlier article that thia guarantee the Court is said by its Labour critics to have given and. broken—a guarantee 'that wages would not be reduced—was not only not given, but was explicitly withheld. The conclusive evidence already available on this point is supplemented in the memorandum by the President of the Court (Mr. Justice Frazer) and the employers’ representative (Mr. W. Scott), which appears today. Unfortunately, although the faets are as clear as_. daylight to anyone who troubles to- look into, them, it seems likely that the campaign against th? Court will be carried on precisely as if it had actually been guilty of*a breach of faith. It is on occasions of this kind that the real weakness of Labour organisation in the Dominion becomes apparent. If Labour were so organised as to ensure the orderly consideration and discussion of a big’ question of policy prior to any pronouncement on the subject, such an' agitatiop as is now being vamped up would be quite impossible. It is onlj> because few workers take an active’ interest in industrial affairs that coteries of Labour officials are able to make the Arbitration Court a ! target for accusations and denunciations which entirely lack justification. The workers of the'Dominion have everything to gain by maintaining and upholding the Court as a tribunal for the fair and impartial regulation of industrial conditions, and everything to lose by giving tacit support to the agitation that is now being fomented. Owing to the apathy that prevails amongst the rank and file of trades unionists, however, it seems not—at all unlikely that this bogus agitation may be lallowed to pass without effective challenge as an expression of the opinion of organised Labour. This being so, a very serious position is 'created. It is no doubt obvious to any unprejudiced, observer that the present outcry reflects no genuine . grievance against the Court, but is intended to w (Taken it and induce it to look favourably upon the policy and demands of the Labour officials who are passing resolutions. Manifestly a dangerously near approach is thus made to establishing conditions in which it would be worse than useless to keep the Court in existence. We may agree with the secretaries representing thirty Auckland unions, though not in the sense they intended, that “a crisis has been reached in the history of industrial arbitration in this country.” Faith in the rectitude of its members, and the impartiality of their decisions, is essential to any public tribunal if it is to function efficiently and serve its intended purpose. In the present case there could be no question of allowing the Arbitration Court to be coerced into adopting the standpoint of one party in industry, even if that standpoint were defined more intelligently and with a wiser regard for the interests of the workers than it is in the current agitation. The Court exists to administer even-handed justice, not only as between the two. parties in industry, but as between these parties and the public. At the same time, since its most essential object is to eliminate strife and friction in industry, its usefulness must depend to a great extent upon its retaining the respect and confidence of the workers. If it is to be assailed and vilified, without regard to equity or common sense, whenever its decisions turn in any degree against the workers, an absolutely intolerable state of affairs will be created for which the only 'obvious remedy will be found in abolishing the Court and reverting to cruder methods of industrial regulation. This would suit the extremists and the,, “direct actionists,” and. it would suit some employers, but would it suit the great body of trades and the public generally 1 The continuance of the arbitration system is manifestly threatened by the present agitation and the spirit to.- which it gives expression. It does not affect this essential fact that the aim of some of those who are foremost- in the .agitation is not to destroy, bitt to influence the Court. Achieving their purpose they would make the Court a mere tool of Labour officialdom, and while they arc allowed to pursue this aim, even with the nominal approval of the workers of the Dominion, they are undermining the only conditions in which the Court can exist and function. In its details, the system of industrial arbitration offers free scope for development and improvement, but even if this were not so, the workers would be supremely interested in upholding it as an alternative vastly preferable to strikes and industrial disorders, the cost of which, directly and in retarding the progressive improvement of wages and

working conditions, falls first and most heavily upon their own shoulders. The indispensable value of the system is not plainer than the fact that it cannot stand if the Arbitration Court is to bo abused and denounced in the name of organised Labour because it cannot in bad times award as favourable conditions to workers as in times of better prosperity.