THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, 27 April 1906, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

OPINIONS 01? LABOUR DELEGATES. WANT-OF-CONFIDENCE MOTION REJECTED. CHRISTCHURCH, April 19. After devoting a great deal of time and attention to suggested amendments of the Arbitration Act to-day, tho Labour Conference reached a motion on the order paper, sent forward by the Wellington Trades, and Labour Council, relating to tho personnel of tho Arbitration Court itself. Mr D. M'Laren (Wellington) moved— "That this conference has no confidents in tho Arbitration Court, as at present constituted." He said be was not present at the meeting of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council when this remit was drafted, and ho did not altogether like tho wording of it; bv.t he thought it was the conviction of r, very laTge number of trades unionists that, the court as it was now constituted was not satisfactory. He was •not in favour of rushing into trouble by urging strikes or lock-outs, but at the same time he objected to any method that was going to tie the hands of workers so that I hey could not defend themselves. 110 thought tho parlies to a. dispute should ho encouraged to settle it among themselves, and he bad the conviction that the settleineni. of disputes would be facilitated if the parties appointed their own assessors. Looking at the awards given for some time past, the court had evidently been attempting something that it was not called upon to do at all. and that was to give awards on theoretic grounds. The. scoretsry of the Seamen's Union in Wellington ha<! sUitril that the. court, gave decisions that wore against the weight of evidence. Ho himself knew of instances in which the court gave ils judgments without considering llie evidence at all, and without reference lo the evidence of either party in the dispute. He could go into detailed particulars to prove the validity of his statement. He believed the court had for some time past given its awards on abstract grounds. It was seeking to say that, as far as employers and employees were concerned, the industries of 'tlio colony should lie regulated in sueh-and-svich a fashion. lib eubmitlcd that the' Arbitration Court was not called upon to settle the economic problem of the State. That was the function of Parliament.

Mr D. H. Hampton (Wellington) seconded the motion, for the reason that' he. was dissatisfied with the decisions given by the court (hiring the past 12 months. They were told that thev must not discuss a judge of he Supreme Court, but if they took the Chief Justice as an example they found they were n"it<' justified in what they were doing. Sir Robert Stout freely criticised the highe.st court in the land when he disagreed with it, and the conference was quite justified in attacking so insignificant a person as the president of the Arbitration Court. He was the man who held the administration of the act in the hollow of his hand. Mr Brown would slick to the demands of Ihe employers, and Mr Slater would stand by the demands of the workers. This created a deadlock. The president was able lo take the mailer into his own hands, and give a decision without regard to the. evidence of either party. He know of cases whero employers and the men were practically agreed, and Ihe judge went back on the whole matler. Further, there wore cases brought for the enforcement, of the act. and the president had gone back on precedent, justice, and equity right .throughout, but, had ignored the evidence a»<l givnn a decision according to his own sweet will.

Messrs West brook (Ilawke's Bay) and Canninglon (Nelson) supported the motion. The Chairman understood tho motion as one of no 'confidence in the personnel of the court, and not the court itself, as appeared to be indicated in the remarks of previous speakers. He. had hoped I ho debate woidd proceed an such lines, and ho had been disappointed. There was a tremendous amount of power left in the hands of tho president, which he was at liberty to exercise as he pleased. With some former presidents, the administration of tho act had been very satisfactory. Under them the act had been fairly and wisely administered, but on several occasions since they found that lhc judge had given erratic decisions and awards. There, wa* no denying the fact that the majority of the awards given by tho present president were very unsatisfactory, and contained elements nf an exceedingly disquieting character. The amount of interpretation of awards required was becoming interminable. Mr justice Chapman had the reputation of being an eminent lawyer, and ho (the chairman) had not the slightest doubt of it; but he seemed to be more Interested in making laws than in adminis-, tering them. He did not think Mr Justice '■'ipinan was qualified to arbitrate in an industrial dispute. lie was an admirable man. and a clever man, and one they could all look up to and respect very highly in another sphere of life. In making this criticisni of the Arbitration Court he had »■! much reverence for the court as anyone, but he submitted he was perfectly entitled to challenge. Mr Justice Chanman's decision, and he intended to do so. As to tlin employers' representative, he was saturated with the interest of those tie representor]. On tho other hand, {hey had

a representative of Labour who was ona of the finest fellows living outsido tho court, but insido he was very weak. Tho Arbitration Court had boon in oxistonco for 10 years, and they had always bad a representative who was a weak man. They really did not know how events might, have shaped themselves if they had bad another representative. He did not, speak disparagingly of Mr Slater, but they should certainly try what could bo donewith someone else in his position. Thoy were condemning the Arbitration Court without having tried it thoroughly. At present Labour was overweighted in the court.

Mr Barr (Canterbury) objecled that this matter should have first been dealt, with by the respective councils, tic objected to anyone coming there- and expressing an opinion on lliU important- matter without the authority of his council.

The Chairman: It is the opinion of the conference that we are taking now. Mr liarr: Tho opinion of tho conference is the opinion of Ihe united body of workers throughout tho colony.

Mr U. lireen (Ottagal said there was no disguising the fact that the motion was practically an attack on the president c:f the Arbitration Court. He did not think I hey had any reason to complain of the employers' representative, as they thoroughly understood that he was there lo look after Ihe interests of tho employers. So far as their own representative was concerned, he had been selected two years ago by that conference, and recommended lo tho unions for re-oleotion. Mr Slater was (he same to-day as he was then, and, therefore, the conference should have no reason to complain of him. He thought the proper course would be for the conference to petition for the removal of the present president of ihe court, and perhaps it would he better to adopt the sng-ge-tiou of a southern union that tho flovernment should he asked to promote. Mr Justice Chapman to the Supreme Court bench. There was no doubt about Ihe ability or the honesty of Mr Justice Chapman, but it was questionable whether lie was fitted for the presidency of the Arbitration Court. He might be more successful in a. higher sphere. Mr ftreen added that, he intended lo oppose the motion. ■

Mr .1. T. Paul ((Hugo) said that tho weakness of llio constitution of the conn was I ho personality and tin; power of the president. Had lliey been aide to keep Mr Justice Williams in the position the history of arbitration in lalxmr disputes would have linen somewhat different. It was imperative V.tir both llie workers and the employers must have, confidence in the personnel of tho court, otherwise either side would object to 111? decision of the court. He intended to -say at once that lie was not prepared to go back on the constitution of the court. It. seemed to him that although they had had several rebuffs, (he time bad not yet arrived when they should say to tho court, " liet out." He for one was prepared to Rive the Arbitration Court a further trial. Ho did not think it fair to make disparaging remarks concerning; Mr Slater, and bo was not going to do so. His conception of a labour representative on the court was that in the event of a case coming before the court that representative should have the whole economic question at bis finger ends, and that if he dissented from tho finding of the court be should also be ready with a minority decision in which, lie showed wherein the decision of tho majority of the court was unsound and unfair. Ho was quite satisfied that it bad hwn unsound and unfair in many cases, and that it hod often been against tho weight of evidence. But to lake the step tho Wellington delegates asked the conference to take would be wrong, and the time had not yet arrived when they should dispense/ with the court, lie candidly admitted, however, I hat the rami could he improved upon. If the present president was allowed to remain where he was the cud of arbitration in New Zealand was not far off. Ho did not wish to say a word against Mr .Justice Chapman. It was not, within the province of the conference to vilify him or to say anything against his sense of justice. He supposed Mr Justice Chapman did what he conscientiously believed to be the right thing. Many cases of unfairness could be cited. It was a. fact that Arbitration Court awards to-day were less intelligible than they were at any timo in tho history of the court. Thero were more applications for interpretation than ever, and they were getting too much law and too little justice.—(" Hear, hoar.") Mr Paul went on to instance a .dispute in the south where a certain number of employers bad been cited. The president of the court decided that all the employers throughout the district should lie cited, mimliering over luO. When the award camo out it was proved that it did not touch many of Ihese employers at all. The union bad been put to a lot of expense at the direction of the court to cite employers who were not affected by the award. Mr A. ltosser (Auckland) opposed tho motion because he was satisfied that, whatever tho failings of the Arbitration Act, nothing had boon put bnfoTe the conference that afternoon worthy of tekiug its place. Mr M'Larcn bad endeavoured to show that be had something to put in the place of the Arbitration Court, but what lis proposed was no! very clear. There had been a great deal of solicitude, shown that afternoon for the promotion of Mr .lustice Chapman, and he (Mr liossor) had little cause lo thank him for many of his .decisions. They must, however, weigh the benefits against the drawbacks to arbitration, and he felt, with Mr Breen and Mr Paul, that they ought to give it u. further trial.— (" Hear, bear.") The motion was then put to the conference, when it was lost, those voting for if being Messrs Moore, M'Larcn, Hamilton, Love, and More, and those against it Messrs liarr, fiohns, Carrington, Pah, Breen. Paul, Wallace, Eosser, Collins, Wcstbrook, and Thorn.