ARBITRATION PROPOSALS

Evening Star, Issue 19712, 12 November 1927, Page 4

ARBITRATION PROPOSALS

EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMISSION « ~ " " DANGER OF INDIVIDUAL BARGAINING TWO ECONOMISTS SUGGESTED AS ASSESSORS. [Pm United . Press Association.] WELLINGTON, November 11. Before tho Labor Bills Committee, Mr Cornwell, representing tho New Zealand Painters and Decorators Moderation, said that his organisation was opposed to any alteration to tho present constitution of the Arbitration Court. Tho proposed arbitrators would create industrial friction, and might undo tho uniformity of conditions existing in industries. They were opposed to any industry being exempted. Mr Andrew Parlane, representing the New Zealand Drivers’ Federation, said he had been instructed to ask tho Minister to withdraw the Bill. In regard to payment by results, lie said this could not bo fair unless the workers hud a say in tho management. Dr Bclshaw, professor of economics at Auckland College, said that tho authorities controlling industry in Britain and Europe him come in for as much as (if not more) criticism as had the Arbitration Court of New Zealand, such attacks being made in a period of depression. He did not think that the proposed amendments would improve the defects of the system. Hc> thought that some amendment was desirable with reference to tho assessors, who, he thought, tended to baluuco each other and tended to compromise; but the proposed amendments would make for delays. While tho assessors it was proposed to put in mi"ht have a knowledge or their own business, they might not have an idea of tho broad value of certain -matters, and it seemed to him that some ot tho smaller industries would lind it difficult to obtain assessors, and there was also the possibility of victimisation, which was not removed by tho six months’ provision, especially in tno smaller dairy factories. Ho suggested an amendment by which two economists should take tho place of tho two assessors. lie believed that these two economists, with a judge, would bo preferable to the present constitution. Ho suggested that the economists should be chosen, ouo each from panels seleced by tbo employers and employees. Ho did not consider that tno present award had injured tho dairy factories or that there was more injury to tho dairy factories than to any other industry. Tho Bill, with its ptovisions lor individual bargaining, was a definite bait to tho unscrupulous employer. Ho considered tho wage rates under tho court too inelastic, and no thought they should bo adjusted more freouently than at present. Ho stated, with reference to piecework, that tiiero might be an incentive to effort, but there would bo a diminution of quality, though ho had no objection to piecework as a result of collective bargaining. Ho saw no need for unitornmy, and if employers and employecse associations desired to put agreements into force without tho present formalities they should be allowed to do so. Moreover, where a majority _of employers and employees desired it, trade boards might take the place of compulsory arbitration. He saw no reason why the system of profit-sharing should not bo applied to the dairying industry. Ho did not think that the court would work satisfactorily in regard to farm laborers except in dairy lactones. Mr H. A. Siofcrt, representing the Flaxinfilers’ Association, said they were opposed to tho Employers’ Federation s views, but should it bo decided that any industry must bo exempted, then they claimed exemption for theirs. It tho industry wero taken-out of tho Act they would probably negotiate w’lrn the employees for a reduction of tbo wages. “My association .Ices not see liow tho industry can continue to carry on on a basis of increased wages ol 70 per cent, as against an increase m tho price of the produce of BO per cent.,” said witness. Mr W. Nash, secretary of tho New Zealand Labor Tarty, will give evidence on Tuesday.