“TOO INELASTIC”

Hawera Star, Volume L, 23 October 1930, Page 9

“TOO INELASTIC”

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION • '-w AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED PREFERENCE FOR CONCILIATION. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) THE HERMITAGE, Oct, 23. At the conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce to-day Mr C. Cameron (Dunedin) moved: “That it is in the interests -of the community that the compulsory clauses of the Arbitration Act he abolished.” Mr Cameron said that the Dunedin Chamber was of the opinion that the compulsory clauses of the Act as now in operation were severely hampering industry, retarding production, increasing unemployment and creating a ill-feeling between employer and employee which should not exist. Manufacturers felt that the present system of compulsory arbitration was inequitable and was increasing the cost of production. Farmers felt with good reason that it was largely responsible for the high costs of all their requirements.

It was claimed for compulsory arbitration that it would abolish strikes, hut- what had been the result? From the inception, of the -system up to 1915 the total number of strikes in New Zealand was 148, and 53 were in contravention of the Act and 95 outside it, From 1906 to 1925 the total number of stoppages was 695. The main objection to the system was that it was too. drastic. There was no- element of give and take. A dispute or an application for a new award became a fight between employee and the labour union -secretary. If the Conciliation Court could not appeal to labour the speaker suggested another alternative in the Labour Disputes Investigation Act which was now on the statute hook and which was operating successfully in Canada. The sneaker -stated the main objections to the present system were (a) hampering industry, (h) retarding production, (c) increasing unemployment, (cl) that it was too inelastic and did not take into account the all-import-ant factor, what will industry stand. Mr. \V. Mach in (Christchurch) secluded the motion and -said they wo-uhl be able to debate the subject at great length. He was entirely in accord with the reasons- advanced by the Dunedin Chamber.

Mr. A. Seeed (Wellington) said lie was in accord with the remit, hut it did not go far enough. He suggested that the Act should he amended to make compulsory the- reference of disoutes to a- conciliation council.

Mr. Cameron (Dunedin): We are quite agreeable- to an amendment in th- form suggested. The remit was then amended, to read “That it is in the interests of tlie comn uni tv that the compulsory clauses of the Arbitration Act be abolished rnd that- an amendment he made to the Act- to effect the reference of disputes compulsorily to the- Conciliation Courts. The remit- was adopted in the amended form. 1 .... .