The Evening Star MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1947. WHO FAILED?

Evening Star, Issue 26028, 17 February 1947, Page 6

The Evening Star MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1947. WHO FAILED?

The full terms of the Government's concessions to the waterside workers are not yet known, but a representative of the employers on the torpedoed Waterfront Industry Commission Ims described them as a “complete capitulation.” In the meantime, however, the Minister of Labour is making the most ctf an admission that the constitution of the commission proved unworkable and Cabinet intervention was necessary to prevent complete disrup-

tion on the waterfront. That claim will not bear close scrutiny. The form of commission that wa6 set up about the middle of last year was decided on chiefly to meet the demands of the workers, and the Government hoped that it would lead to harmony on the waterfront. Weaknesses in the set-up were immediately apparont to some observers, but the national secretary of the workers’ union protested against any criticism, declaring that “wo are looking for peace in our industry.” Just how much peace there was Is only now becoming fully evident. The chairman of the commission states that practically from the commencement there was no agreement between the opposing sides, and when no one agreed the responsibility fell upon him, as chairman, to decide everything. This is not an unusual position when opposing sides are represented on a tribunal with an independent chairman, and there need have been no serious conflict. The chairman had the full benefit of the arguments of both sides and was in duty bound to produce a finding in fair equity to all parties, and there is no doubt that Mr Justice One ley did so act.

When a case is submitted to arbitration it 1 is customary for the parties to accept the decision arrived at after the hearing of evidence and submissions. But when Mr Justice Ongley announced his' findings last November om the claims put forward by the waterside workers they immediately refused to accept them, and took direct! action to force a Government capitulation, which past experience had given them every reason to expect. Their confidence lias been justified by the results. The Minister says the Government “ had been extremely reluctant to tako over a functioii that should have been _ performed by the commission,” and’ he blames the “ commission’s failure ” for leaving no alternative. The plain fact is, of course, that the commission did not fail at all. With all its inherent disadvantages it' acted properly, but it was the workers who “failed” to observe its rulings, aided and abetted by the Government. The employers appeared to be appalled at the extent of Mr Justice Ongley’s concessions, believing that it would add substantially to their costs, which had already been increased by £200,000 a year by previous awards by the commission, but they showed no signs of refusing to accept the decision. That is where the two sides parted company. The employers were prepared to abide by the findings of the constitutional authority; the workers were not. The outlook for the future of industrial relations has not been improved •by the Government’s weakness in this case. . Mr McLagan says he believes that all who realise the serious possibilities of the situation will approve the Government’s intervention. An employer’s representative estimates that the secret concessions now made may add another £IOO,OOO a year to the cost of handling goods on the waterfront. This suggests that by holding the country to ransom and disrupting trade the waterside workers have secured a reward of £IOO,OOO a year.' It is a clear invitation to other powerful unions to do likewise. If the form of commission set up last year is unworkable in the waterside industry, it is remarkable that the Arbitration Court has managed for so many years to hold the balance successfully' between employers and workers, but tile explanation is probably that the persons engaged in industries subject to the court’s jurisdiction are not a law unto themselves and have due regard for constitutional authority. It is true that persons directly representing the industry in dispute do not sit with the, judge in the. Arbitration Court, and there is consequently not so sharp a conflict, but the lay members of the court clearly have their affiliations. The Government professes to hope that some form of commission control will yet prove workable in the waterfront industry, but after its latest action it places a new tribunal under the very severe handicap that the workers may continue to go behind it and seek satisfaction from the Government by direct, action when a commission’s findings are not entirely to their liking. In' 5 the circumstances, independent members of such a commission might be chary about taking office.