CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 85, 7 October 1929, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

ARBITRATION SYSTE&

SHOULD IT BE OVERHAULED ?

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—ln your editorial columns o£ 3rd October, under "Topics of the Day," you touch that which 1 feel has become a, serious weakuess in our industrial arbitration system. You, justifiably, I think take exception to the form in which the recent protest of the workers' representative is made. The same action may be taken by the employers' representative on some future occasion. The fact that the form or wording of the protest may be more diplomatic or milder does not affect the point I would like to refer to, namely, that the incident you have drawa attention to is only another glaring proof in support of the contention that thos» who sit with the Judge, and thereby constitute a Judicial Court, ignore or fail to recognise their purely judicial capacity, and act as party agents and as party agents only. It is quite possible, human nature being as it is, they have been made to feel that the controlling sections of the parties responsible for their appointment expect them so to act. That is as may be, the fact of their so actine is beyond dispute. It is also beyond dispute that a body or institution that does not properly carry out the work for which it was created should be ended if it cannot be mended; Being of the opinion, as the result of close observation, that there is no effective argument against the principle of industrial arbitration, to end it would be too much like scrapping a valuable and costly machine, because one repairable part required attention. There is, I subput, strong evidence that the part desk ing with the "Constitution of the Court" requires attention and overhaul. If it is impossible to get lay membera to *ct other than party-agents, let the constitution of the Court be altered by substituting for the representatives of the interested parties me* outside and independent of «uch parties, and with legal training and standing, sufficient to enable them to occupy the position of Judge when necessary. ,1 realise fully that there is much truth in the statement made in many' quarters that the real Court to-day is the Judge. If that be so, and he is thereby credited with the full responsibilities of all decisions, although but one-third of the Court, yet the only judicial part, would it not be more just, more reasonable, to appoint a Judge only as the Court? This would leave the two laymen to plead as agents in the open Court if the respective, parties would co employ them in connection with cases relegated to the Court. I am aware that a Court of three Judges has been advocated by some. Others again consider two as the ideal for New Zealand—a Judge and a. Deputy Judge. If it is true that lew than 10 per cent, of what is known as industrial disputes come before the Court, other than for ratification, and that the bulk of the work comes under compensation for accidents, there would appear to be some reason in the suggestion of a Court of two Judges. Those ' are points on. which differences of < opinion are bound to exist, and as on many other important questions; while parties are in. agreement, that change, revision, or reformation is necessary, the position is allowed to grow worse, the patient may even be allowed to die while (the doctors debate as to the proper cure when all that is really needed is a. mild purgative. Some hold that the industrial arbitratiou Bj-stem is firmly established in Neir I Zealand, and I feel there is ground for ; such an opinion, but is it not well to recognise that if we desire to retain an inI stitution, we must, as it were, carry it with us. We are bo prone to look upon in-; stitutiona as stationary, in fact, the greateat of all men's institutions is suffering from that idea at the present.time. While institutions may on rare occasions be destroyed from without, the general cause of destruction is internal disease. I ay strongly of the opinion that in the Arbitration Court we have a part of a valuable institution ripe" for treatment of 4 most simple kind, but requiring the sacrifice of an idea. Are the parties most interested able to impartially and_ without any; selfish interest, examine the idea that the-Court as. at present constituted riot not be after all the ideal Court?—l «n> etc., IN COMMENDUM.■'--