MR ARNOLD AND THE ARBITRATION ACT.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Though it is not my custom to enter into newspaper correspondence with regard to public questions, my relationship with the Labor movement in New Zealand necessitates my saying a word or two with regard to your sub-leader in Tuesday night's issue. Let me say in the first place, however, that I have no fault to find with the report of my speech as delivered •in the Burns Hall; indeed, it is very creditable to your reporting staff that they could condense so accurately my speech into two and a-half columns. lam also pleased to find that, with your large knowledge of labor matters, you so fully agree with the views set forth by myself. However, as to the formation of conciliation boards or industrial councils there seems to be some difference of opinion as to my views, and I now state them definitely. The first aim of the Act should be to bring about conciliation between the various parties, but thjs should be done in such a way as that each party interested should be represented upon the judicial body- appointed, whatever that may be. In my opinion, the weakness of the proposal as introduced last year lies in the fact that the whole industrial council were to be called into existence to hear and determine one dispute only, after which they ipso facto ceased to exist. It is absolutely necessary that there should be some continuity in the board. I therefore suggested that the chairman and two members be elected, as now, by the Employers' Association and by the unions, who would deal with all disputes during their term of otlice. but that, in addition to these, there should be added two members representing the employers and two from the employees in connection with the particular trade in which the dispute occurs, the four latter ceasing to be members as soon as that dispute is dealt with. We would then have a continuity by the nucleus of a judicial tribunal that would be familiar with all cases dealt with. There would also be representation of all interested parties, in addition to which a guarantee that in every case the majority of those on -the board would be members of the calling or trade interested. It is quite immaterial to me whether the board be called a conciliation lioard or an indnstrial council. In all probability the latter name would be the better, in consequence of the fact that conciliation bop.rds, | ; at present constituted, are considered to have been a failure. I still hold, however, that this failure would not have happened if the hands of the boards had been strengthened some years ago when the demand was made that such should be done, and the power of either party to send a case straight on to the Court withont being dealt with by a conciliation board had been tiKen away, or, in other words, the repeal of the "Willis Blot." I am, etc., J. F. Arnold. June 19.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19080619.2.87.1
Bibliographic details
Evening Star, Issue 12982, 19 June 1908, Page 7
Word Count
509MR ARNOLD AND THE ARBITRATION ACT. Evening Star, Issue 12982, 19 June 1908, Page 7
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.