THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1927. THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20060, 29 March 1927, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, MARCH THE ARBITRATION COURT.

The statement made by tho Minister of Labour to a deputation of farmers last week at Pukorau contained much matter for meditation; it calls for the attention of students of the present economic situation. The Arbitration Court has no friends or at least their voice is not heard. Its decisions are assailed as strongly by tho Labour unions on the one hand as by the farmers’ unions on the other. One of the speakers for the Pukerau deputation put its case in a nutshell when he expressed the opinion : “The Arbitration Court was no benefit to the farmer or the dairy factories, and the sooner it was abolished the bettor.” Mr Anderson remarked that this was by no means the first request which had been made for the abolition of the Arbitration Court; similar sentiments had previously been expressed by a number of farmers’ unions in the North Island. In addition several industrial unions had passed resolutions urging the removal of Mr Justice Frazer, which practically amounted to tho same thing, since a judge was an essential part ol the machinery of the Court. Moreover, the judge played an important part iu safeguarding the public interest when making an award. The very fact that both employers and employed have so forcibly signified their dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Court constitutes sufficient reason for (lie Government to reconsider tho whole position. The Minister touched the crus of tho question when he inquired, in the event of the Arbitration Court being abolished, what was to be put in its place ? Ho reminded his hearers that it would be futde to attempt to return to tho conditions which prevailed in what the farmers might bo inclined to regard as the “good old days.” The hours worked and the wages paid in those “good old days” would not be tolerated to-day; education had done its work, and workers every whore were realising the power of (ho vote, and the abolition of tho Arbitration Court must mean its replacement by some method of settling disputes, such as those prescribed under tho Labour Disputes Investigation Act. And Mr Anderson aptly summarised (lie situation when he said, “At round table conferences those businesses which could pass on to customers the cost of improved conditions and wages, without the intervention of a judge, would readily agree to increased wages or improved conditions, so long as outside competition could be excluded; while those businesses, such as farming, which could not pass on the increased costs, would be in no better position than they were now.” A case iu point is the increase in wages granted by the Arbitration Court under the new award for the employees in the freezing works. Tho judge held that the increase granted was justified iu order that tho freezing workers might be placed in the same position as the workers in other industries who arc in receipt of tho minimum wage. His Honor also laid down tho following basic principle:—“When an industry is in difficulties owing to over-capitalisa-tion an industrial court should not reduce the wages standard of the workers for that reason, unless that standard is unduly high in relation to the general standard of wages, but it should leave the adjustment of tho difficulties to tho operation of economic forces.” While the soundness of this deliverance as a general principle may not bo disputed, it is a plain fact that tho interval which elapses before the economic forces can fully operate imposes hardships which both workers and employers are inclined to resent; henco the cry which is being raised for the abolition of tho Arbitration Court. Mr Anderson made a further point when he contrasted the position of tho small dairy factory or sawmill or flourmill when competing with the larger and bettor equipped industry of tho same class. “The wmges and conditions,” remarked the Minister, “had to bo fixed so that tho workers iu small factories and mills could carry on, and, without any desire on tho part of the Court or the Board of Trade, this had the effect of giving larger and better equipped concerns an advantage over smaller ones.” Tho Minister went on to say that while ho proposed to introduce into Parliament next session some amendments to the • Arbitration Act he could not recommend the repeal of tho Act, until something better could be devised to take its place. He believed that in spito of its defects and mistakes tho Court had protected tho general public and at tho same time its awards had been beneficial both to employees and employers. Tho Minister’s concluding words suggested tho remedy for every difficulty; ho said that tho hope for tho future amicable relations between Capital and Labour lay in a system of co-operation adaptable to the special conditions of each industry. In the past tho representatives of employers and employed upon Hie Arbitration Court have taken up tho attitude, too much, of antagonists, with a judge between them to keep the peace; this reflecting the spirit that has animated both employers and workers’ unions. Whatever improved machinery may bo devised for the settlement of industrial disputes, tho spirit of antagonism must bo exchanged for a spirit of partnership. Then when prosperity abounds all concerned will share in its benefits; similarly, when as at tho present time, a period of depression sots in, all must bo willing to share (ho burden which had times impose.

facilities which the postal system affords. It is not strictly correct, of course, to say that Dunedin has no Post Office. Hut its postal officials are provided with accommodation that has always been recognised to bo of a temporary character, though, as they have been accustomed to it for the last ten years, they may well be more or less domesticated there. Dunedin’s temporary Post Office being located in a side street in what was once a public hall wo do not direct strangers to it with pride, but rather with apology. Dunedin had a Post Office, and is to have a Post Office, but the interregnum of makeshift, hurtful to civic pride, has been a long one, and the Government cannot be surprised that the community is becoming very impatient for definite signs that the end of the period of waiting is at hand. There is nothing like persistence, and the wonder is perhaps that Ministers of the Crown are not weary of being confronted, when they come this way, by formidable deputations bent upon airing this ancient grievance, and pushing the perennial question of what the Government is going to do about the matter. But Ministers of the Crown are skilleu in returning the soft answer that averts wrath, and not conspicuously, even after all these years of pertinent inquiry respecting the Post Office, do they avoid Dunedin. The deputation which interviewed Mr Coates yesterday on. the time-honoured subject trod worthily in the steps of its predecessors, and, of course, had all the best of the argument. Indeed, there was no argument, nor room for any. Dunedin has been patient in going without a new Post Office, and in enduring the reproach of the blank-windowed and shabby old structure which formerly did duty in that capacity. That Dunedin should have its new Post Office is conceded by the powers that be, but the realisation hangs fire for all the preparation of plans and estimates. The vigour with which representations have been addressed to Ministers on the subject within the last tew days lias not, perhaps, been all in vain. But hope is still deferred. The present financial year was to see a beginning made with the new building, but considerations of finance have tempered the Government’s magnanimity. The reply given by Mr Coates to yesterday’s deputation left the whole matter still very much iu the air. The Minister of Finance, if not present to confront the deputation in the flesh was there very much in the spirit. The Minister of Finance, said the Prime Minister, was experiencing some difficulty in finding all flic money required by the departments—it was just a question of which works should be gone on with first, “and if, by chance, the Minister of Finance found some difficulty, he might have to ask them to consider deferment of the Post Office.” Perhaps there is room for hope that the Minister of Finance will not by chance find any difficulty, or that the choice of works will not be unfavourable to Dunedin. But the suspense is not removed. Mr Coates’s reply to the deputation was a model of discretion.