THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14428, 19 July 1907, Page 6

THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Perhaps the most striking feature'of the Attorney-General’s speech on the arbitration system was his admission that he was not prepared with a full, complete and entirely satisfactory solution of all the problems of labour. Few politicians are so ready to admit their limitations, and it is generally tho case that the more intelligently a man studies human nature and human activities the less dogmatic lie becomes concerning them. But Dr Findlay stated the principle underlying the arbitration system very truly. There are throe parties to a labour dispute, the employer, the employed and the State, representing the community. So long as a dispute concerns only two parties they may be left to settle it in own way, and if they elect to use the machinery provided by the State, so much the better for both of them. Many countries provide machinery for conciliation and arbitration in industrial disputes because they believe it is a duty the State owes to the community, just as it provides civil courts for the peaceful settlement of litigation. Hero in New Zealand we carry tho argument a little further We declare, quite soundly, that the State is a party to every industrial dispute because industrial disputes tend to disorganise industry, to check production and to prejudice the interests of the ydiole community. Therefore we require the employer and employee who are at loggerheads to carry their dispute before a properly appointed and competent tribunal for settlement, so that the disorganisation of industry may be avoided. The obvious difficulty arises when it is desired to compel the parties to a dispute to accept tho awand of the tribunal and to abide by it. Clearly it would be an unwarrantable infringement of personal liberty to

compel a man to work under conditions repugnant to him, or to compel an employer to employ men under conditions which he considers objectionable. But the State takes it upon itself to say that there are certain conditions which every employer must observe, being, theoretically, those conditions which the normal employer of humane instincts and with ia sense of justice would observe without compulsion. Ihore will be variations in the awards of the labour tribunals, because different judges in different times will have different ideas of what constitutes “humanity” and “justice,” but the general principle will remain the ©ame. If it is possible to state the duties of the employer in these general terms it ought to be possible to state the duties of the workens similarly. And the law has attempted to do so. It requires that the workers shall not combine to disorganise a business or a trade for the purpose of compelling an improvement of the conditions of labour or an increase of wages. Dr Findlay hints that he sees a way of enforcing the law on this side without resorting to the wholesale imprisonment of workers. W© shall not speculate concerning his proposal. The only suggestion that has been offered so far as we know is that the employer should be directed to pay a percentage of the weekly wages of all his employees into a fund to he held by the Public Trustee, and that this fund should be held—with a definite maximum—as a guarantee that the workers shall observe their contract. The suggestion looks impracticable, however, because of the expenses of administration, though the officers of trades unions might be directed to keep the necessary individual accounts, just as they now keep accounts of the financial status of their members. To our mind this fidelity fund would cease to operate as a deterrent as soon as the worker had contributed the maximum amount required of him, because thereafter he might regard the money paid in as » definite loss. As an alternative it is suggested that a union, before taking a dispute to Court, should be required to make a deposit .as a guarantee that the award would be observed. This is merely a variation of the other suggestion, and the same objections hold good. Presumably Dr Findlay’s ideas on the subject will be made known when the Amending Bill is brought down this session, and we shall await the appearance of the measure with special interest on that account.