ANOMALOUS STATUTES

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 87, 12 April 1923, Page 8

ANOMALOUS STATUTES

CONFLICTING INDUSTRIAL" LAWS . QUESTION OF STRIKES. I The industrial laws of 'New Zealand are somewhat anomalous in that one statute, the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, prohibits strikes or lookouts, while another, the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, sanctions them. Some of the more "militant" unions have a preference for the "direct action" method of enforcing their claims, but in the last year or so they have not been I able to put their principles into practice , because the employers forestalled them' by citing them before the Arbitration Court, thus securing awards giving some measure of security for a period of industrial' peace. A few days ago, a deputation from the Alliance of Labour waited on the Minister of Labour (the Hon. G. J. Anderson) to lay before him its views regarding the present legislation, and made a suggestion to the effect that, if a majority of members of a union wanted to register under a particular Act, the minority should be bound by the decision of the majority, and be prevented from seceding and registering | under another Act. What members of the alliance deputation had in mind particularly was the fact that the Labour Disputes Investigation Act allows a certain form of procedure to b« followed which the Arbitration Act forbids, and this is considered to be anomalous.

Partial agreement with the views entertained by members of the Alliance of Labour was expressed to a "Post " reporter to-day by a ' gentleman prominently associated with employing interests. "Here," he said; "we have the Legislature legalising strikes on the one hand and punishing them on the other. We are finding the Labour Disputes Investigation Act more of a nuisance than a help. There is no need for the Labour Disputes Investigation Act at all. It only leaves the back door open to disgruntled unions who are not prepared to accept the decisions of the Arbitration Court. The Tramwayman's Unions in the various centres are largely the people who have taken advantage of the provisions of this Act. The Labour Disputes Investigation Act deliberately encourages strikes, for it contains provision for a strike ballot to be taken in the event of the parties to a dispute failing to agree at a conference convened by the Conciliation Commissioner. A curious thing about the Act, however, is that it does not say what further action shall be taken by the parties if the voting at the secret ballot goes against a strike. The deadlock continues. Unlike when, proceedings are taken under the .Arbitration Act, there is no finality reached with the Labour Disputes Investigation Act. Under the Arbitration Act the parties to a dispute meet before the Conciliation Council, and if there is no agreement the matter is determined one way or other by. the Arbitration, Court when it files its award. The Labour Disputes Investigation Act merely affords a means for calling the parties together ' before Government officials who have been asked to mediate, but there is no finality about it." . ■ '

Attention was drawn by '' The Post's " informant to another aspect of the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, and that was that agreements made in accordance with its provisions ended absolutely on tha expiry of the period for which they were entered into, whereas, on the other hand, awards of the Arbitration Court; remained in force until superseded by others, or' until i"a union's registration was cancelled.' In addition, the Arbitra-i tion Court's awards prevented employers^ from trading upon the necessities of ther workers in. time of depression. It really I protected the interests of the workers, because it fixed definite -wages standards, below which employers could hot go by. any process of bargaining, which would certainly be open to them if the Court and the protection it afforded were abolished. ■