THE ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12210, 4 March 1903, Page 3

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

TO THE EDITOR. ' , ' " < Sir,—l am obliged to Mr. S. Brown,'wheat I take to bo a member. of the Arbitration Court, for oho opportunity lie gives m© of reiterating all I said at. the Chamber of Commerce meeting. , • • 1 Mr. Brown complains that I confuse cause and effect, and that when I said " Court" I ought to have said "Parliament.'' Not so.. I throughout spoke of the instrument, not. of the maker. I discussed the ' efficiency \ of the instrument as though one should say this broom sweeps well, not. however, ~ forgetting the man at the handle. Everyone knows, of course, that the Court can do nothing, of itself, and that it but administers the law. That, however, does not make its action more conformable with reason and the teachings of experience, or, if Mr. Brown prefers it, does not make the law less mischievous. ;• —"v

Mr. Brown says the Court has no power to reopen its own awards. May I remind him of the agreement in the clothing trade rogistered. about April, 1902, and understood to have.the force of an award. "It was desired to reopen that agreement, and accordingly it came before the Court, and was there argued on December 20 last, when Mr. Justice Cooper said: " They (the Court) diet riot agree with the view that the industrial agreement had the force of an award, but even if it. had the Act appeared to give the Court power of action." Thus in Mr. Brown's own . Court the power to reopen awards has been asserted, and if I mistako not at this very ■ moment it is acting on its own dictum. Mr. Brown says that in such circumstances the whole thing is a farce, which is precisely what I contend. Mr. Brown denies that the Court shows a disposition to base its awards on profits of business, and declares the Court has no power to call for books. He then says: "The unions can take out a summons, and the Court will, direct the production of books.". Quite so. I care not how the books get there, but get there they do, and are considered by the Court. It is nothing to the purpose to say books are examined in private, not that the Court, as at present constituted, is prudent, in the matter of their use. They are there for the purpose of informing the Court as to the profits of trade. I believo that to be a wrong basis on which to settle wages which opinion I cannot ? k® alone. As to the use made of books when before the Court as bearing Oil profits being the basis of awards, the following extract from your yesterday's report of the Court's proceedings is enough: " After carefully considering the circumstances and the evidence adduced in the. present case,' the Court did not think that\hey were justified in increasing the standard rat© of wages. The results of. the company's operations sinoe' the industrial agreement of 1900, showed that, although the price of coal had been' raised by them the whole of the increased returns had 'been absorbed in, tho increased cost of production, and the figures in their published balance-sheets indicated a decrease now amounting to about 4000 tons in ; their year's productions and sales, • as compared with the productions and sales, for the year ending March 31, 1900. Their last ' balance-sheet showed also that tho dividend of 74 per cent paid to their shareholders on the paid-up capital of £72,000 absorbed all the profits of the company, with the exception of a. sum of £494- written off for depreciation, of machinery, while nothing ■ was appropriated for depreciation of the mine. .On these figures it did not appear to the Court' that the employees of the company, had been underpaid, and the operations of the company' would not permit them to pay a higher rate and obtain any reasonable return, for the capital. invested. ' Mr. Brown says, in reference to my statement, that wages,, like .most things in this imperfect world, are. governed by tho law of demand and supply: "I think in this also Mr. Upton is unable to teach th© Court how to best do its work." It would be a matter of very sincere regret to me to think that in my -remarks referring ,to the Court 1 had been didactic. My object was simply ■ to tell a round, unvarnished tale of .the working of the Court, and to leave others to draw such conclusions as occurred to them. . *It would be impossible for me to add anything to what has been said of the potency of the law of demand and supply in governing the price of all things bought and sold. You may conceal tho working of the principle, but' | you cannot abrogate the law. It is, however, useful sometimes to draw attention to first principles, and I had hoped that I had done so in a manner that could not offend the most delicate sensibility. I am, etc., ' ■ . ■ '* J-H.'UPTON. ,