THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1963. THE ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12210, 4 March 1903, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1963. THE ARBITRATION COURT.

IN oUr yesterday's impression Mr. S. Brown, Who represents the employers on the Arbitration Court, defended the procedure of • that Court from some of the criticisms of its operations made by Mr. Upton as chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. We shall not deal With the details brought up, as that is Mr. Upton's business. But the working of the Court must now be fully discussed, and the people of the colony must consider whether the law is to continue as at present without amendment. The unions themselves have raised the subject and have determined that thfefe shall be radical changes, and the colony must be prepared to look at the subject from all sides. ;

First, it would appear that We shall have to face the position that the Act has to be Worked while the colony is not able to borrow. We believe that the fabric of Seddonian legislation and Seddonian administration rests upon our being able to obtain a Million a year by way of loan. In his address at Picton the Premier said that within the last twelve years the colony had / borrowed £14,000,000, and whether that has or has not been profitably expended, there is no question that it has gone to relieve the labour Market. ~ Supposing the operations Of the Court to restrict trade, or to prevent the investment of money in any business or enterprise giving employment to labour, the Men are etiiplbyeS on public works, and the competition . of labour is avoided. We are quite likely, ever, } soon to have to face the position when the Government will riot have money spend in that way, and when the whole position will be Materially altered.

. It lias been admitted that the; •whole i aspect and design of the sys- | tem has turned out materially \ different from what was anticipated." | It was distinctly stated that -the far greater number •; of the disputes would be settled by ,the Conciliation Board, without the necessity of having recourse to the Court with its I compulsory ■ powers. But now all idea of conciliation haS been ; aband- ; oned. v - This 1 abandonment of . con-. , ciliation : has not flowed •. from ,' the i change made recently in the Act, j by which parties ; ean go ?dif6ct to the Court; • virttt&lly, all cobciliation had I- been given up previously to - the [ change being" made: in the Act. •:

: r It may also : . be pointed out that | the Court is being used for purposes never contemplated by those who framed the Act,. and Which ■:seem to us entirely : foreign, and even antagonistic, to -.its idea and purpose. Look at what has been going On before' the Court during the last few dap. 'the Act was passed to facilitate the • settlement of disputes between employers and employed., Its chief purpose of late seems to us to be to raise the cost of production to : the '; public, and to promote the formation of rings or trusts amongst -.- employers. The Court has been occupied for several days in the heaving of a dispute between the Southern and Northern clothing manufacturers. The employees have had nothing to do with the matter. The Auckland clothing manufacturers have for several years past had a system of working, and a " log" under which their • employees were paid. The system suits the class of goods made, and the employees are; perfectly satisfied With it. They make no complaint to the Court. But the Southern manufacturers, who are working under a clumsy system, contend that the Auckland manufacturers .must drop their system at the cost of entirely remodelling their establishments, and With the result, it is contended, of considerably increasing the cost of the finished article to the consumer. This contention, which was never thought of when the Act was introduced, has occupied the Court on different occasions* and is one of the most troublesome cases which has Come before it. One purpose, too, apparently, is to so fix the trade that it will be impossible for small men to start. We predict what the conclusion will be, namely, that under the auspices of the Court, and with the sanction of the law, a great Clothing Trust will be established throughout the colony, by means of which high prices will be charged and all competition will be excluded. Such an arrangement is facilitated by the great protection given to the clothing trade by the heavy duties levied on imports. And yet Ministers talk glibly about legislating against trusts 1 This brings us to the point raised by Mr. John Mitchell at the late ■meeting of the Chamber of , Commerce, namely, that in the whole proceedings of the Court there is no provision for the public being heard, for those being represented who have ultimately to bear the whole burden. On this point Mr. Brown is quite clear. He says: —"Nothing is recognised by the Arbitration Act except unions of workers and unions of employers. The trade, commerce, manufacture, agriculture and mining, the interests and welfare of the 800,000 people; of New Zealand, are controlled by putting the Arbitration Court in motion by a body of unionists representing about -20,000. The other side is represented by the representatives of some 1800 employers." And of course «£he interests of the* 800,000 go to the wall. The Court cannot take those interests into consideration. Is this fulfilling " the democratic maxim that all legislation should be for the greatest good of the greatest number 1 ;, In the late coal-mining case, the Court refused to grant an increase of wages on the ground that the company, as proved by an examination of their books, had not made sufficient profit to justify the rise. That was one of the grounds of a refusal to concede the demands of the men. But that is not a good ground, and ought not to be considered by the Court. If the company cannot exist without paying lower wages to the men than they ought to pay, the Court has no right to maintain that company in existence by Compelling the men to accept insufficient Wages. Mr. Brown says: —" If a company are carrying on business in a legitimate manner and are not making a fair return on the capital invested, that, in my opinion, is a legitimate reason for refusing a rise." We do not think it is, because 'there may 'be overcompetition. But when the whole procedure of a. Court is based upon a complete overturning of the laws of political economy, which are as certain as the law of gravitation, it is quite impossible to say where it can stop. But the Court is not consistent in taking this ground, because in another case which was Recently before it it was shown that profits Were'iow, and that "employers had sometimes to content themselves with less than a journeyman's wages. But the Court paid no heed to these representations. In One case lately the Court has made conditions so that no j apprentice can be trained to the trade, Employers are not likely to be milch inconvenienced, because they can obtain men from Australia or England. But What is to become of the New Zealand boys 1 They must loaf, about the streets till they fall into the criminal class. . That is the sentence of the Court. On the whole, we consider that one of the tasks of OUr new Parliament, to meet in June next, will be, in the interests of all classes, to look at this Act in view bf the new con ditions Which we must face in New Zealand, Judging frbim . recent ' expressions from * the trades unions, we shall have unanimous consent to this. Every fault Urged can be traced to the. Act, We feel sure that no thrß6 more kbitiesi and conscientious men . dan be ' found ;in New Zealand than the three who now conduct the business.