CONCILIATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4496, 25 October 1901, Page 4

CONCILIATION.

Tho excellent proposals of the Government for the improvement of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act have evoked an interesting debate in tho Legislative . Council. What ;is most to be admired about the discussion so far is the candour of expression displayed, which is in marked contrast to tho rather gingerly treatment accorded the subject in tho Lower House. It is evidence that a Chamber removed from tho necessity of ■'trimming 1 ' for votes may fulfil a very useful function in our legislative machinery. Tho outspoken, ness wag as marked when the Hon John Rigs; acted tho part of “ candid friend'' to tho Premier as when the Hon J. D. Ormond undertook tho role of critic of tho Wellington Conciliation Board. As tho debate progresses it is to bo hoped tho same freedom of expression will prevail, and wo doubt nob it will bo found that not a few oven of tho "Labour” members of the Council are in accord with tho measure, and determined to assist tho Government in making the original Act more workable and satisfactory. Mr Ormond has boon blamed for giving definite shape to tho statements of "the man in the street ” on the subject of the malpractice connected with tho u ollington Board; but surely it is r, legislator's, duty to take cognisance of things that are matters of notoriety,, and which are not to bo disposed of by an off-hand remark that there is “not a tittle of truth ” in them'. Wc fully agree with Mr Ormond that the evidence Dear, ing on this subject which was laid before tho Labour Bills Committee should bo published. The return presented to the Legislative Council, giving statistics of the operations of the Boards of Conciliation during the past year, certainly shows Wellington in a most unfavourable light. Not only had the Board of this district by far the largest number of cases of any district, but its cost exceeded that of all the other Boards put together. There may, of course, be greater industrial discontent in Wellington than elsewhere ; but tho accusation that this discontent has been fanned by agitators who have seats on the Board is presumptively supported by the fact of the large number of disputes initiated, as well as by the unconscionably long, time occupied in hearing them. One case absorbed thirty-eight sittings of tho Board; two others took twenty-five days each. The contrast between the Auckland and Wellington Boards is most marked. The former had ten cases before it in the course of the year, of which six were settled by conciliatory process, and only four were sent to the Arbitration Court. The latter had twenty cases, of which only two were settled outright by the Board, three were subject of compromise, and fifteen went to the Court for compulsory adjustment. If all the Boards were like that of Auckland, there would, be no reason for the cry that “conciliation does hot conciliate;” but* when in throe-fourths of tno cases brought before them the Boards fail in their special funfction, it is time to set about amending their constitution and limiting their powers for mischief. It cann bo said that Mr Rigg was either happy or effective in his defence of the “status quo” and the Wellington Board. The Minister of Labour has opportunities which Mr Eigg does not possess of obtaining information regarding flaws in the machinery of the statute, and his warning of a f® w weeks ago, that there was a danger of the labour unions “riding the Act to death,” was not uttered without full knowledge and deliberation. The proof of the Minisr ter’s sincerity is the Bill new before the Council, which presumably has been drafted on the advice of the official head of tho Department of Labour, and which wo know is approved in its main features by a number of representatives of labour. It is absurd to plead, after six years’ experience of the Act, that it is being condemned without being given “a fair trial.” The amending Bill now under consideration is evidence that the measure has passed the tentative stage, that it 3 principle is approved, and is

destined to remain a permanent factor in our industrial life; in short, that arbitration has proved such a success that it. is desired to strengthen end perfect the measure. Thera i s some pertinence and reason in I£r Eisg’s criticism of the details of the amending Bill—a good deal more I than in bis remarks concerning tho si> litudo of tho newspaper press towards tho Conciliation Boards. Tho newspaper?, have been absolutely fair in their reports of tho proceedings before tin: Boards—more than fair, indeed, for had they reported all that took place, instead of only a twentieth part, tho public weariness and disgust would have been more pronounced than it is. For ourselves, we have boon among the warmest supporters of tho principle of industrial conciliation, but the methods cf the Wellington Board have been such that wo feel bound to express thorough approval cf tho proposals for setting up special experts boards, to take the place cf those constituted under the Act, if desired by cither party, and for allowing cither party to claim to have the dispute referred direct to the Arbitration Court. It is, in a sense, perfectly true that the adoption of these amendments will strike at the root of tho original Act; but in the true sonse it will not do bo. It will 'be a confession that tho idea of tho author of tho. Act has proved fallacious—a proof of the failure of his expectation that conciliation would) be the rule and arbitration the exception. But there is no more futile task than quarrelling with facts. The facts pro. vide tho justification for the amendment of tho law on the lines contemplated. Arbitration has been the rule; conciliation the exception. All parties to disputes abide cheerfully by the awards of the Arbitration Court; very few accept those of the Boards. This may be duo to the human craving for finality, ag much as to the defective methods and nor-iudicial findings of the Conciliation Boards. But, finality being desired, why should we, under pretenpe of conciliation, continue a'system that has been abused, and has been proved to provoke and exasperate, instead of conciliating? Tho Bill now before the Legislature pro. poses a happy solution of the problem, bv leaving the Conciliation Boards in existence, to be invoked by those who have confidence in them, while at the same time providing for disputes going instead to specially chosen boards, pr direct to the Court, which possesses the confidence of everyone. It is to be hoped that the Bill will become law without material alteration. If it does, the “ industrial peace ” of the past six years may be expected to become mi*, leimial in its profundity and perma. nonce.