ARBITRATION COURT DOOMED.

Otago Witness, Issue 3004, 11 October 1911, Page 63

ARBITRATION COURT DOOMED.

JUDGE THE WRONG MAN. MINISTER'S FRANK CRITICISM. DRASTIC CHANGE FORECASTED. EQUITY THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT. (From Otjb Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, October 4. Frank condemnation of the present constitution of the Arbitration Court was the keynote of a .striking debate which took place after 2 o'clock this morning, when the House of Representatives was in Committee of Supply on the Labour Department's Estimates. The Minister of Labour declared that a Supreme Court judge was not a proper person to adjudicate upon industrial disputes, and that unless the present judge was replaced by a man of industrial experience who was not a judge the court would be forsaken by the labour unions and become defunct for want of work. Many unions were cancelling their registration under the act, and it appeared that very soon only the small unions, which needed the protection of the act, would maintain their registration until they were driven out, because there would be no justification for preserving the court for the benefit of such small organisations. Grave consideration must be given to the, position, and he feared there would not be time this session to devise a remedy.

Mr A. L. Herdman declared that the Arbitration Court had done. incalculable harm, and it would be beneficial if it were replaced by an improved system of conciliation.

Mr L. M. Isitt said that there was intense . feeling in regard to the present constitution of the Arbitration Court, and a growing opinion that some one other than a legal authority should be the head of the court.

Mr D. M'Laren said that many of the workers had become impressed with the idea of the need for a drastic change in the character of the court. Mr F. M. B. Fisher advocated the wages board as the most able and most conciliatory means of settling industrial disputes. He feared that under the present conditions the Arbitration Act was doomed. He urged the introduction of amending legislation this session. The effective value of the act was depreciating daily. The Minister admitted that the court as at present constituted was held in derision. There should be a man of great industrial experience to take the placo of the judge. Mr Herdman : Do you think that would improve it? Mr Millar : We should have a court of equity instead of a court of law. Mr Herdman : You might have a court of injustice instead of a court of justice. Mr Millar said that he was the first man in this country to suggest an Arbitration Court with a judge presiding. He thought a judge's words would be accepted by any man, and would give satisfaction, but it had not proved so.

Mr Herdman : That is a pretty strong reflection on your Supreme Court bench. ' Mr Millar said the original intention was that the Arbitratian Court should be a court of equity, but* it was impossible for a lawyer to get out of legal methods. No court could always increase wages, and he did not complain about that. What he objected to was that legal points were taken up and the men driven out of the court. The skilled worker did not need the court, because it was not easy for an employer to replace him. but the unskilled man needed its protection. Mr M'Laren denied that the leaders of labour were opposed to arbitration and conciliation. The position was that the majority of the unions were opposed to the constitution of the court and to the formal disabilities with which it was invested. In order to secure an industrial court that would be of value to the country the basis of judgment must be equity and good conscience, and not the principles of jurisprudence. Mr Herdman said the opinion of members was apparently that the principles of jurisprudence were of no use in arriving at a just decision. —(Members : " No, no.") It was utterly ridiculous to say that a good business man should take the place of the judge. Things would be worse. His own experience was that although judges were bound in the courts by the rules of evidence and by precedent, they were men of common sense and experience of the world. There was an increasing tendency on the part of judges to arrive at decisions in a practical common-sense way. If the argument against judges in the Arbitration Court were sound judges would be useless in the courts of justice also, and absolutely out of place there. The failure of the Arbitration Court was not due to the judge. The act provided that the court

should not be bound by the rules .of evidence, but must arrive at its decisions on broad general grounds. Yet the decision when arrived *at must be put into the form of an award, and necessarily the decision had to be in legal form in order that it might be binding on both sides. The real trouble was that the demands made both by employers and employees were often unreasonable.