ARBITRATION HISTORY

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 58, 9 March 1928, Page 5

ARBITRATION HISTORY

WORKING OF THE LAW REPLY TO HON". J. MACGREGOR (To the Editor.) Sir. —I have read and re-read the recent series of articles on industrial arbitration. Apparently they are intended to be a contribution towards the conflict of opinion that will be generated within the next few weeks. As such they are entitled to serious review. Tue, author, tue Hon. John JHacGregor, AI.L.C, claims that the articles are an outline of the history of the Act, but when he dips his pen into party political bias his value as au historian depreciates. Moreover, the honourable gentleman has been tapping away at the same single note for many years. Although he believes he has found a serious defect in the working of the law,-I cannot see that he has come forward with any tangible remedy. Nevertheless, the drift of public thought towards .what may be termed "pure conciliation ' is, I submit, the most serious menace to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The extremists and the theorists have been cultivating their ideas for twenty-one, years/ and the matured product will be offered to the world in the coming Industrial Conference. To avoid digression, let us classify your contributor as a theorist in the meantime. , I dare to say, the Hon. Mr. MaeGregor notwithstanding, ' (1) That the "Reeves Act" has fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended. (2) That the Reeves system is still on the Statute Book. And I must now add that the conciliation clauses, or good intentions, bo' much prized by your contributor/never were of any real value —and never will be. The merit of the whole Act lies in compulsory arbitration, conciliation proceedings, before and after the* ■creation of an industrial dispute, are cumbrous and useless. That is where the politician's, and near-by politicians, are trying to take us back to just now. The veriest tyro, must . learn that he (Cannot proceed to create an industrial dispute under the Act until, he has invited the . other party to meet in the sweet spirit of .conciliation^ I cannot recall any practical result from such- invitations, "except when I had a team of striking slaughtermen at my back. The unions have sent circulars by the thousand, and in most instances not one employer has deigned .to-reply. But if any Union failed to comply with this requirement the representative of the employers would almost invariably demand that the ease be thrown out on the ground of informality. So much for voluntary conciliation! It is after the parties have failed to come together, or have failed to adjust their differences, that the applicant party is entitled to claim thai an industrial dispute exists. Documentary evidence must be submitted in proof of this before the case can come within the, ambit. of' the Court's.jurisdiction. Then conciliation proceedings commence all over again. I have said that political bias is apparent in. the contribution. Ah example: "This state of things has arisen from the fact that successive Parliaments, dominated 'by political unionism during the Seddoh-Ward regime, completely transformed the real Reeves system into some; thing quite - different from what it was intended to bis" ■ , " The most important alteration in the whole history of the Act was the Amending Act of 1908, No. 239. This Act is divided into four parts. ■ Part I. deals •entirely with strikes and lock-outs. But the lock-out is merely figurative—the whole section was aimed at the slaughtermen' who went out on strike in the previous year. Part' 11. makes new provisions for the enforcement of awards and industrial agreements. The outstanding feature 'of this part is the provision by. which the Wages Protection Act is set. aside to allow tlie Labour Department to' take possession of a man's wages if he fails to pay a fine. Part 111. abolishes the Boards of Conciliation and makes provision for the setting up of Councils of Concilia,)-ion instead. I shall deal with this presently. Part IV. is a miscellaneous section. One clause deprives tho worker, of his wages if he fails to claim the full amount due within three months of the date on which it should have been paid. Another clause deprives domestic servants and other workers of any rights they might ■ have had. under the Act.: Strange results surely from a Parliament "dominated by political unionism!" .May-I quote the Hon.-Mr. MaeGregor again?". '"Within five years' after the passing of the Act the provisions intended by its'author for fostering and applying the conciliation provisions, had been so utterly perverted and abused by the union representatives on the Boards of Conciliation that the boards were abolished,, after having been converted into Courts.of first instance, with the right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration, and bad: become a scandal and a nuisance." . The Conciliation arid., Act became law in 1804. Boards of Conciliation were replaced by Councils oE Conciliation in 1908. -This correction is not important, but it gives another instance of the slipshod nature of the contribution to arbitration history. Tho boards,-never became n scandal. They were never a greater nuisance than the Councils of Conciliation are now. The conciliation provisions were never "utterly perverted und abused by the union representatives." ' . Upwards of a quarter of a.century ngo virtuous citizens worked, themselves into^ indignation-because a couple of Labour1 representatives claimed fees for sittings of a perfunctory character. Tho chief. offender was out of the Labour movement long Before the Amendment Act of 190 S. was thought of. He has been dead for many years. The incident had no bear-' ing whatever on the working of the Act, and tho most astounding thing in tho whole series of articles is the form.-of its resurrection. How many politicians of to-day can put their hands whore' their heart ought to be .and-solemnly fay that they have never collected a cent from the Treasury except for services-rendered. I wonder. Under the .original Act the boards wore set. up in much the same way. as the Court. The unions and the employers Merc asked to recommend persons suitable for appointment, and these were appointed for a given period. The chairmen had to bo mutually agreed upon, but the boards were seldom able to agree at all, 1 mid. the- duty of appointing a chairman devolved .upon tho Government. Then the chairman had voting powers, and the recommendations became majority decisions;." Tlic minority side almost invariably appealed to the Court of tion.In lieu of this method permanent Conciliation Commissioners were appointed, and to ensure that all recommendations would be by mutual agreement—that is to say, by conciliation —tho Commissioners were deprived of voting power. The Kcmi-ponnanent members of the boards were done away with, and the parties to each dispute'were asked to recommend assessors who were directly interested in the trade or calling under review. A determined effort was made to deprive tlie unions.of the services of paid officials in" the proceedings, ■so as to ensure the smooth working of conciliation. In. fact, the whole purpose of this section of the Amendment Act of 190S was to remedy the defects that became apparent in the working of the original Act; and thus strengthen the conciliation proceedings. The provisions' intended by its author for fostering and applying conciliation remained—and are still there. The U-onble is .that conciliation is not a plant that can be fostered by soft words. The bij; stick is' the thing to make. it. grow. 1 have tried both. There-are;a dozen other points in the articles that' should receive attention, but I cannot expect that you, Sir, will look with a glad eye on a contribution of this length. In view of the importance of the coming Industrial Conference, and the serious'issues involved, ,I felt that it was not in "the public interest that such a piece of propaganda should pass unchallenged.—l am, etc., M. J. PtEARDON. Bth March.