CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

Evening Star, Issue 12101, 6 November 1908, Page 3

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

The president of the English Board of Trade recently issued aiT important memorandum announcing that as an extension of the scope of the Conciliation Act he proposed to set up a Standing Court of Arbitration, to be composed of from three or five members, according to the wishes of parties to the dispute, and to be selected from three panels. The first panel would be composed of persons of eminence and impartiality, and from it the chairman would be drawn; the other panels would be drawn from the “ employer.” and “workmen and trade unionist” classes. The personnel of the Court would be constantly .varied, and where, requested the Board of Trade would appoint technical assessors tb explain the peculiar condition of any trade, but not to vote. No further legislation is necessary. The London ‘ Telegraph ’ at once took steps to ascertain how the new departure was regarded by the classes it was designed to affect, and here are some of the opinions gathered : The manager of a large Lofadon firm of manufacturers cordially welcomed the announcement. “ The establishment of this new court,” he said, “should prejudicially affect nobody. .It is quite voluntary, but at the same time it will place the settlement of trade disputes on a more satisfactory basis. The figures quoted in Mr Churchill’s circular illustrate the success of the Board of Trade in dealing with these difficult problems and the growing tendency to refer such matters to the Government department. The constitution of the court should meetthe wishes of both sides, though I hope persons with first-hand knowledge of the trades concerned will be appointed. Neither workmen nor employers, as far as I can see, can reasonably oppose the propostil, if only for the reason that there is no compulsion, and if they object the scheme may become a dead letter as far as they are concerned/’ r, r . T -, Costigan, secretary of the Master uuilders Association, took an opposite view. “Wo have always been,” he said, against htate interference, and I think employers will object to this, especially to people boing appointed who do not understand the trades concerned. I am afraid also that this innovation may be the beginning of Compulsory Arbitration, to which we are strongly opposed. The opinion that has been expressed amon" our members is that if the State interferes at all it is likely to appoint people who are not qualified by knowledge of the particular trades. At present we have conciliation m our business, and sometimes when we cannot come to an understanding we agiee to ask the Board of Trade to appoint an arbitrator.”

Mr C. W. Macara, president of the reiteration of Master Cotton Spinners’ Associations, expressed satisfaction with the proposal to establish a standing Court of Arbitration, which, he said, was a step in a direction he had advocated for many jears. For a very long time he had striven to secure an Arbitration or Conciliation Board for the cotton trade, and m all the great industries, which were inseparably bound together, he believed there ought to be some means of bringing together the prominent leaders representing Capital and Labor to decide questions arising between the two interests. 1 hough not in a position at once to criticise the scheme in detail, it was broadly in agreement with the views he had been known to hold. ° A well-known shipbuilder said that he did not regard Mr Winston Churchill’s proposal with much favor. “My company,” he sa>d, “ have recently had experience of Board of Trade arbitration. A conciliator appointed by the department was ca ed m to give an award in what I might call the demarcation of work in the different trades of our business, but the trades unions concerned have refused to accept it. My company have more than once suggested the reference of a matter of dispute to the Board of Trade, but the trades unions have declined to submit to such arbitration. In New Zealand and Australia, where compulsory Conciliation has existed for some time, special legislation fias had to be provided to force the men to carry out an award in the event of its being displeasing to them. At the/ present lime trades unions do not seem to care at all whether work is lost to the country or not so long as they maintain their trade union rate of wages. In three or four foreign countries to-day manufacturing is bemg done from the designs of firms which formerly did the work in London and exported it. This is due to the wages m foreign countries being about half the present English rate.” Mr A A. Haworth, 31. P., a member of one of the largest firms of yarn agents in the world, expressed the opinion that the underlying principle of a panel of those with recognised knowledge of particular trades to ~ct as an advisory panel to the Board of Trade in all matters, including questions of wages in these trades, would likely to prove of great value in Great Britain. Arbitratum for the cotton trade of Lancashire was. probably more* likely to be secured now on the lines of the conciliation scheme, which had been discussed for so long, and which, ’ had it been in force to-day, would have prevented the possibility of such a crisis as was now in existence. trade union leaders seem as inclined to welcome Mr Churchill’s proposal -as are the representatives of Capital. On both sides there is a feeling that a tribunal .ike that proposed by the President of the Board of 'Trade ought to have the full confidence of each side in anv dispute, and even if one party felt dissatisfied with the finding of the Court, the force of public opinion would probably prove strong enough to prevent resort to strike or lockout. Councillor Tom Fox. the secretary of the Manchester and Salford Trade and Labor Council, said on general principles he agreed that anything tending towards arbitration ought to bo gladlv accepted. A leading cfficiai of the Edinburgh Trades Council expressed the belief that the workmg men generally of the citv, but especially those who had adopted the forward attitude in reference to Labor questions, would look with favor upon the proposed standing Court of Arbitration. So far ns he himself understood tire proposal, he could not think there could be any reasonable objection to it. The 'mere fact'of such a Board being in existence and ready to take action would, he thought, have an influence in the way of preventing strikes. The Edinburgh coopers’ strike, which had been going on for the last two or three weeks, would have been obviated if such a Board had been constituted. Tho late Sir George Livesey, chairman of the South 3letropolitan (London) Gas Company, and author of the profit-sharing scheme, regarded the Board as merely a palliative, for it was not possible to unite Capital and Labor by means of a legislative enactment. Sir Thomas Brooke-Hitching, who is a member of the London County Council’s Conciliation and Arbitration Board, declared that tho ground was already covered by institutions. During 1907 the London County Council’s Conciliation Board had dealt with sixteen cases. Anything that tended to soften the acerbities that sometimes arose between employees and employed must do good. Much would depend on the selection of conciliators. (A hint to our Minister of Labor.) In cases where masters and men of their own spontaneous action appealed to the Court, 4 would probably be a success, but experience proved that cases of this kind were few in number.

“ I welcome the change, as far as it goes, - ’ remarked Mr Earns ay Macdonald, M.P. “The difficulty that will always be experienced is that of getting tug issues relevred to arbitration. Where, as it seems to be the case in Manchester, an irresistible demand is met by an. immovable objection, the Court is not likely to prove of much value. Compulsory Arbitration? I am opposed to Compulsory Arbitration, because that carries us very further in legislation affecting the liberty of trade unions than I am prepared to accept unoer present conditions. And y. et - if arbitration is not compulsory, and i- both sides have got to agree to the Court’s sitting. a*> they have to do under the Board ot Trade’s new scheme, I am afraid it will only come in at the end of big disputes, when on® side or the other

is beaten. Mr Churchill's ia superimposed on_ the. Conciliation of 1896, which has not been pnt into operation, because' one side or the other has not bad enoogh confidence in the Board of Trade.; but so far as that difficulty goes, I thinb that , the new scheme removes it. An excellent feature of the scheme is the recognition of trade unions.. No scheme, of arbitration would be complete without that. Both employers and men must agree that organised Labor only should be recognised in the negotiations with-arbitration. But one of the difficulties: that will be experienced is the fact that trade unions in some districts are practically autonomous. Generally speaking, however, the new Court of Arbitration is an excellent move towards a very desirable end.” •- •