ARBITRATION DELAYS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23516, 2 June 1938, Page 8

ARBITRATION DELAYS

REPLY TO CRITICISM EMPLOYERS NOT TO BLAME ALLEGATION OF PROPAGANDA (Special to Daily Times) WELLINGTON, June 1. A reply to the recent Labour complaint of the delay in the making of awards was made to-day by Mr T. O. Bishop, secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation. “During the last few months, I have frequently been reminded of what a prominent union secretary who is not now in office once said to me several years ago,’’ he said “I had made an appeal to him to endeavour to remove the dissatisfaction which existed in the industry with which he was connected, and had said that I thought, if he would co-operate with me, we might be able to create a satisfactory, body of workers in place of the highly dissatisfied body of workers then existing. He replied that I did not understand his point of view, and that the last thing he desired to see in the industry with which he was connected was a satisfied body of workers. I am reminded of that remark because it seems to me that prominent trade union officials today, in the absence of a real grievance, take steps to disseminate propaganda with the idea of creating an imaginary grievance and fostering a spirit of resentment at these grievances in the minds of large numbers of workers. It appears as though there is a danger of there being created a satisfied body of workers, and so those who do not desire a satisfied body of workers keep on endeavouring to create grievances where there should be none existing. Of this nature is the statement issued by the Trades and Labour Council of the Federation of Labour. “With the portion of this statement referring to the delay on the part of the Court of Arbitration in making awards I am entirely in agreement. I think there is far too much delay and that a good deal of it could be avoided if the court were a little more systematic in dealing with its cases. That, however, is a matter which only the court can rectify. “I do take very strong exception to the other part of the statement, namely, that the employers deliberately hold up the agreements with the object of defrauding the workers of their just dues. That is so far from the truth that I cannot allow it to pass unchallenged. The facts are that for the last two years every employers’ organisation and all secretaries of employers’ organisations have been working at exttonely high pressure endeavouring to catch up with the vast number ox citations fifed by workers’ unions. Far from there having been any unnecessary delay, we have all been doing our utmost to keep the work up to date and to deal with the cases as expeditiously as possible. . “ There have been delays certainly, many of them due to the workers’ own error in the first instance. When a workers’ union files a citation it is seldom indeed that there is any consultation with the employers concerned as to the date on which the citation shall be dealt with. The union secretary concerned arranges the date with the Conciliation Commissioner, and the first the employers hear about it is a formal notification that a date has been fixed. Frequently that date has clashed with a date already fixed by another Conciliation Commissioner for another dispute, and, as the same officer has to take both cases, it is necessary that one or the other shall be adjourned. Union secretaries, when filing disputes, should first get into touch with the employers’ representative and arrange with him a suitable date. A number of delays have sprung from this cause, “ It is further stated by the Trades and Labour Council that the employers’ assessors hold out on unessential points in the Conciliation Council, thus robbing the workers bf thousands of pounds. There is, of course, a difference between the employers’ viewpoint and the workers’ viewpoint on what is and what is not an essential point. I can only say that in my own experience I have found employers’ assessors throughout all Conciliation Council proceedings exceedingly friendly disposed towards the workers, and certainly not at any time disposed to hold out on unessential points. It is seldom that more than two or three, or at most, half a dozen important matters are held over in Conciliation Council and referred to the Court of Arbitration. A matter referred to the court in a number of recent cases is that of the hours of work, which a recent decision of the late Mr Justice Page had fixed at more than 40 a week. Naturally, the employers were not willing to forgo th<e benefit of the decision recently given in their favour on this all-important question, and so, when unions refused to embody in the new awards any provisions for hours in excess of 40, the cases had to be sent on to the court. In several cases, had the hours’ claim of the last award been accepted by the union concerned, all other clauses could have been settled in council. “ I have not at the moment a list of the number of Conciliation Council meetings and the number of Arbitration Court cases dealt with in the last two years, but I can say without any hesitation that almost the whole of the time at the disposal of the staffs of the employers’ organisations in the last two years, week after week, month after month, has been occupied in dealing with industrial disputes, and they have been dealt with as promptly, as expeditiously, and as reasonably as has been possible in the circumstances. I make this statement because I think it is due to the employers of the Dominion that the fair-minded and generous way in which they have met the obligations imposed upon them by the recent legislation of the Government should be recognised.”