THE ARBITRATION LAW.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21580, 27 February 1932, Page 10

THE ARBITRATION LAW.

Bt the practice of organised obstruction the Socialist members of Parliament yesterday prevented the introduction by the Government of the Bill, foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in various speeches, for the amendment of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The main feature of the Bill, it may be assumed, is that it proposes to- enforce the principle of compulsory conciliation, abolishing the right of appeal to the Arbitration Court, except by mutual agreement, and to provide the means by which some of the restrictive features in existing awards that tend to narrow the avenues of employment may be brought under review. It is surmised also that the Bill will contain provisions under which agreements to work at piece rates may be entered into and by which the exemption, wholly or in part, of particular - industries from the operation of the Act may be granted. The motion to introduce the Bill was opposed by the Socialist members with a vehemence and indeed a fierceness that might have made some impression upon a street-corner crowd but cannot have appealed strongly to a sober audience of representatives of the electors. For .argument some of the speakers substituted threats. Mr Peter Fraser, whose imagination, running riot, pictured the degradation of the unionists to the condition of serfs and slaves, solemnly warned the Government that “ the spirit of the workers was not broken.” Mr Sullivan declared that “ the passage of the Bill would produce the very conditions from which riot and revolution were likely to develop.” And Mr Holland, Leader of the Opposition, not to be outdone by his lieutenants, darkly hinted at the possibility of “thousands of working men storming around the doors of Parliament Buildings.” It will not, therefore, be from the lack of incitement from their parliamentary representatives that the' unionists of the Dominion will not resist to the uttermost the passage of this Bill. But it is probable that the majority of them are wiser, and have cooler heads, than their parliamentary representatives, and if so they will recognise that there is nothing in the Bill itself that calls for the wild talk in which Mr Holland and others thought fit to indulge. Most unionists have complained of the delays that have occurred in the settlement of disputes, so-called, by the Arbitration Court and all of them must realise that the points that have been reserved for decision by the Court have, for many years, been generally of no very material consequence. There are few among them, moreover, who can have failed to see that there is an inflexibility about existing awards that has certainly hampered industry. To all these, it is likely to be a matter of surprise, therefore, that the Opposition should have met the Government's proposals with so much intemperate speech.