ARBITRATION PROCEDURE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 129, 1 June 1907, Page 5

ARBITRATION PROCEDURE.

THE FLAXMILLERS 1 DISPUTE. PRESIDENT EXPLAINS THE PRACTICE TO BE FOLLOWED, ' IMPORTANT TO EMPLOYERS. The point raised in the Arbitration Court yesterday regarding the duty of employers, where a dispute has been before the Conciliation Board and its recommendations aro acceptablo to 'the union seeking for an award, was further referred to by the president of tho •court (his Honour Mr. Justice Sim) this morning. His Honour said the court had put its viuws in writing which were as follows -. -" "In connection with tho hearing of. tho flaxmillors' disputo, which was referred to yesterday, it seems desirable to put in writing our views with ye» gard to the practico in connection with the hearing of disputes which have beon i before a Conciliation Board. Whore both sides havo boen represented before tho board, and tho board, after a full investigation, has made a recommendation — that recommendation ought, \va think, to be treated as prima facie a fair and reasonable settlement of tha industrial dispute. The court has jurisdiction to make ap award after having tho points in dispute discussed by the parties without hearing any evidence at all, and although, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Chapman in the general labourers' disputo at Nelson (Book of Awards Vol. V. p. 330J a recommendation has strictly no legal effect after the dispute has been referred to the court there is nothing to prevent the court from calling on tha party who has referred the dispute to the court to show causo why the recommendation of the board should n O t be adopted as the basis of an award. If such party cannot adduce any valid reason for disregarding the recommendation the court, without calling on tha other side, may make an award on the basis of the recommendation. It certainly seems to be a convenient practica to take the recommendation as a starting point where one side is content to accept it. To do so would be equivalonfc to treating the hearing before the court, as an appeal from the recoiumbiidation of the board, and probably would result in most cases in the saving of time. The party objecting to the re. commendation would state hjs objections and call any evidence he desired, and the party supporting tho recotn--mondation would then call any evidence he' dosired in reply, "In cases where neither side' is satis-* fled with the recommendation of tha board, then the party who brought th« disputo before the board would hava to begin at the hearing before this court, but even in euch a caso it may bo convenient to take the recommendation as a starting point. "Wo ta.ko this opportunity of saying also that in cases where there is an existing award or industrial agreement which it is desired to ■ havo modified, the union in framing its demands should take the award or agreement as. a starting point and show exactly in whnt respects it is desired to have the) same modified." Hio Honour further stated : In con* ueeiion with this question I may alto refer to section £5 of the "Act wjiidh ! provides that "the court may refer any j matters before it to a board for investigation and report, and in such cares tho award of tho court may, if the j cou.-t thinks fit, bo based on the report of tho board." From this the legislature evidently intended tho recommendations of the board to bo taken as, the basis of an award. I