INDUSTRIAL PEACE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3867, 24 April 1928, Page 27

INDUSTRIAL PEACE.

i CONFERENCE RESUMED. THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM. VIEWPOINT OF EMPLOYERS. WELLINGTON, April IS. Further progress was made by the National Industrial Conference, which resumed its sittings to-day. Papers representing the considered opinions of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, the Labour delegation, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and Professor D. O. Williams were read. Tomorrow discussion will be taken on Professor Williams’s paper, after which • a Start will be made with committee work. There are two main committees, the primary and the secondary industries committees, consisting of 25 members each, and Upon their deliberations, activities, and decisions will depend the ultimate success of the conference. The paper submitted on behalf of the Employers’ Federation contained a number of proposals for improving the present arbitration system of the Dominion, the chief of these being a plan for retaining the best provisions of the Arbitration Act and th" Labour Disputes Investigation Act. It was also suggested that the Arbitration Court should be retained in its present form. It was submitted, in the first place, that the real question for the conference was not to inquire into the working of the Arbitration Act, but to inquire into methods by which the costs of production and ■' distribution could bo reduced with the minimum of industrial loss and disturbance. Dealing with the main factors in the cost of production—Labour, costs of raw material and plant, and wages cf superintendence, as well as rent <f premises—it was urged that unless there were improved methods of production and increased co operation between labour and those directing it, resulting in greater production for the same cost, wages >f labour and of superintendence must in the end be reduced. Unemployment -was a sure sign that money wages were at such a height that all the labour available could not bo absorbed at the standard of mbney ■ wages current. No trade or business’ could continue to employ . men at a : loss. How far it was asked could the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act help in the solution of the probh .? The object of those who, in 1894, secured the passage of the Arbitration Act . was to apply some measure of sane control to trade unionism ; and to direct it as far as possible into safe and useful channels by giving the unions duo recognition, bestowing upon them certain privileges and imposing upon them certain responsibilities. In other words, it was hoped tomako trade unions a useful part of the industrial machine. Was this arbitration system of sufficient value to be worthy of retention. either in its present or in a modified form? The system had its advantages and its disadvantages. A detailed criticism of the Act led to the conclusion that on the whole, its influence m New Zealand industries had been helpful. Certaiuly, it must be admitted .by any reasonable student after considering the English industrial law, with its rigel to strike and lockout, that the principal object of the framers of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act in Now Zealand—-the prevention of strikes—had been attained to a reasonable degree, the benefit derived by the Dominion from th* greater measure of industrial peace it baa enjoyed had been quite definite. Industries in New Zealand might be divided into four classes, namely —(I) The so-called primary industries, the product of which is largely exported,.and for which prices are regulated by the world’s parity. (2) The naturally sheltered industries, transport, waterfront work, building, and jobbing engineering. (3) Manufacturing industries partly protected by tariff. (4) Distribution. Wholesale and retail trading. These were very largely interdependent, a fact that was apt to be ignored. It was true, that it wages were unduly high, or if other conditions of employment were unduly costly in any of the industries of classes 2,3, or 4, those engaged in the industries of the first class would be penalised by having to pay prices for the goods and services they required disproportionate to those they received for their own products. A pertinent investigation was therefore whether the cost of the products of the sheltered industries was higher as a result of the operation of the arbitration system than it otherwise would be. The snswer was that wages and conditions of employment ruling today in the transport services (railways tend waterfront labour) and in the building and allied trades, were the result of mutual agreements and had not been fixed by the court. It was difficult to conceive any system of regulation which would entirely prevent employers and em- ► ployees in the sheltered industries mak- * ing agreements which could not fail to penalise both workers and employers in industries which were wholly unprotected. The Arbitration Court did exercise a restraining influence upon the sheltered industries. It was one of the chief duties of the judge to properly proportion the wages' paid in the different industries within the Dominion according to the skill required and the hardships involved —Mr Justice Sim in particular did much good work in this direction during his term of office as judge of the Arbitration Court. It had been realised by all organisations of employers for many years that the Arbitration Act had developed in a way not intended by its sponsors. It was originally intended that the Court of Arbitration should be used only to settle serious industrial disputes, but it had led to the periodical creation of disputes between employers and Workers, merely for the purpose of bringing before the court an application for a change in the provisions of an award. The word “dispute” used in connection with the Arbitration Act had acquired anew meaning. It did not mean anything’'more than that either the employers or the workers in an industry desired.’dhe . court to amend the existing award in their own favour. It

might be, and probably was, true that in this way the workers were provided with an opportunity. at regular intervals of thoroughly ventilating any grievances they might have and of obtaining a decision upon their demands promptly and without haying to use a show of force to obtain a decision from their employers, and that this obviated serious disputes. Nevertheless, this system of creation of disputes was a ground for criticism. It brought the court in between employers and their workers unnecessarily; it was apt to cause a feeling of unrest and hostility between managers and their workmen anu it had caused tho court to become a legislative body, framing regulations for industry, rather than a court of appeal to settle only those industrial differences which the parties themselves could not settle by negotiation. The position was summarised a« under: (1) The Arbitration Act has given a greater measure of industrial peace than has been enjoyed by any other British community during the period of its operation. (2) It has broken down the old hostilitv of employers to trade unions and produced a friendly atmosphere of collective bargaining. (3) It has acted as a governing factor over wages regulating the rate of increase and of decrease, preventing too rapid fluetation in either direction—a national evil as causing corresponding excessive fluctua tions in prices. On tfie other hand: (1) The arbitration system is not compulsory, but operates in any industry at the option of the workers. (2) Although the great majority of unions accept awards made by the court experience has shown that awards are not enforceable against strong unions against their will. (3) Awards of the court are unavoidably inelastic and restrictive as to details. Lack of. elasticity in times of severe trade depression is apt to impede recovery. (4) The system does not prevent, though it may be an influence against the making of agreements between employers and their employees, contrary to public interest. On the whole (the paper continued) during the last 30 years, the advantages of (lie arbitration system have outweighed its disadvantages. It must be admitted, however, that except for brief periods trade conditions have been favourable to its operation. Even so, the weaknesses already discussed have become apparent and under unfavourable trade conditions the effect of these would be greater than hitherto. In the case of all systems much depends upon the users. Whatever success has been achieved in the past a correct appreciation of both sides of these weaknesses and a joint determination to remedy them would yield better Results During the last two years there has been expressed a general demand for the removal of these weaknesses. Many suggestions have been put forward but none has been acceptable to all concerned. The problem still remains to be solved. The following proposals -.re submitted for consideration:—

1. Since the application of arbitration to any industry is not compulsory, but depends on the decision of the workers, and because it is not wholly enforceable, even when it does apply, remove the compulsion and make it wholly optional. To bring this about, amend the Act so as to provide that if no agreement is reached by a Conciliation Council in any dispute reference of the dispute to the Court of Arbitration shall require a unanimous agreement of the assessors on both sides. In any case in which no agreement is reached by a council and the assessors do not agree to refer the dispute to the court the existing award or agreement shall cease to operate as from the date of its expiry or the date of the council sitting whichever is the later. The existing provisions for conciliation are the best machinery that has yet been devised for bringing employers and wbrkers together for the settlement of disputes. This machinery should not be disturbed in any way The present proposal will not disturb it. On the other hand, the responsibility of the assessors on both sides will be increased since they will know that failure to make an agreement may result in a deadlock. 2. The Court of Arbitration to be retained and in its present form. It must be retained because the only alternative would be a special tribunal for each dispute. an impracticable suggestion because of the difficulty of obtaining arbitrators. The qualities that go to make a successful arbitrator are many, and are rarely found in business men. In England, where arbitration in industrial disputes is purely optional, the procedure in any grave dispute has been strike or lockout followed in most cases as a final result by arbitration. There the Board of Trade has been able to supply as chairman of the arbitration tribunal men of the necessary natural ability, high character, and economic and business knowledge. In New Zealand there has been no opportunity to train such officials, and none, such are available. The present constitution of the court, an arbitrator from each side and a judge as umpire, ensures the confidence and goodwill of both sides, and should be retained. The Act already provides that a special expert assessor from, each side may be added to the court, in an advisory capacity in any case calling for expert technical knowledge. 3. Provide that for the purposes of the I.C. and A. Act all unions, whether registered under that Act or any other Act, or not registered at all, shall be deemed to be registered under that Act. Under the Act as it stands now some unions have declined to register because they have objected to being compelled to refer their disputes to the court, and have preferred to settle them by direct negotiation with their employers. If. proposal No. 1, giving either side the right to. a conference with the other side and making reference of a dispute to the court entirely optional, be adopted, this objection will be removed, and there will be no reason why all unions should not automatically come under the same Act. The penalty for a union convicted of a serious breach of an award or agreement should be deregistration depriving the union of all rights under the Act and of the right to collect fees or to. enter into any collective agreement with a union of employers. 4. To meet the case of no agreement being reached by a conciliation council and a. refusal of the assessors to refer the dispute to the Court of Arbitration, incorporate in the I.C. and A. Act provisions similar to those contained in the present Labour Disputes Investigation Act for the taking of a secret ballot precedent to a strike or lock-out. .

5. Repeal the Labour Disputes Investigation Act. 6. Amend the section of the Arbitration Act dealing with strikes or lock-outs as may be necessary in view of the foregoing proposals. Summed up, the proposal amounts to a combination of the Arbitration Act and the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, retaining the best provisions of both. Briefly, the davantages which may be looked for if these proposals are adopted are:--(l) A decrease ir the number of disputes filed. (2) An increase in the number of complete settlements arrived at by direct negotiation between the parties. (3) The restoration of the Court of Arbitration to the position it was originally intended to fill—that of an arbitrator in real dis-putes—-instead of that of an industrial regulations factory. (4) A greater freedom of the patries in any particular industry to embody in an agreement provisions designed to meet special conditions peculiar to the industry. On the other hand, a deadlock may be reached’ in some cases. However, this has happened during the last few years under he present law, and there is no reason to think that under the proposed system it would happen more frequently. Neither employers' assessors nor workers' assessors would accept lightly the responsibility of refusing to refer a dispute to the court for settlement if serious industrial trouble were threatening. In this paper a sincere attempt has been made to present an accurate statement of the effects of the I.C. and A. Act during the years of its working, neither ignoring nor exaggerating either its good points or bad points, and to offer constructive suggestions for its improvement.

LABOUR ATTITUDE DEFINED.

PARTNERSHIP SOUGHT IN INDUSTRY. WELLINGTON, April 18. Labour’s attitude towards the Arbitration Court was defined in a paper read at the National Industrial Conference today, by Mr J. Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Alliance of Labour. “We dosire it to be definitely understood,” said Mr Roberts, “ that the Labour movement has no hallucinations whatever about the Court of Arbitration. We say unhesitatingly that we have not received justice from that institution for many years past. During the war period the bonuses allowed by the court were only conceded to the workers months after the cost tff living had increased, and when these bonuses were conceded they. did not by any means compensate the workers for the increase in the prices of commodities.” In 1921, said Mr Roberts, Parliament gave power to the court to reduce wages by general order, but it might as well to point out that Parliament gave no such power to the court to increase wages by general order. In other words, when prices were rising wages were increased by the retail method; but when prices became stationary or showed an inclination to drop wages were reduced by the wholesale method. The workers were not satisfied with the basis laid down by the Government Statistician for the fixing of wages. The Labour movement did not desire industrial upheavals. It recognised that strikes were generally undesirable and often caused considerable economic loss to the community. Its members were also of the opinion that it should be the duty of the legislators to amend the law in such a way as would give the parties concerned every opportunity of adjusting any industrial dispute that might arise. They were in favour of arbitration as against the strike weapon, but in saying that they desired to assure the conference that they did not desire an arbitration system which was loaded against them. There were several methods of arbitration which could be adopted in the settlement of industrial disputes independent of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Referring to the amendments which were proposed during last session, Mr Roberts said the workers would prefer to have no Act whatever than to attempt to carry on a trade union movement under the proposed legislation. The Act at present was far too narrow in its outlook and confined the operations of trade unions to one locality, when everyone knew that manufacture and transport today as a general rule were operated from a national- centre. For that reason there should be provisions for national unions and national awards and agreements. The Labour movement insisted on the right of industrial unions to decide whether they should register under the Court of Arbitration or not. It was contended, further, that neither the Government nor the employer should be empowered by law to compel a majority of the workers in any industry to submit an industrial dispute to the court if the workers were opposed to that course. In the case of strikes or lock-outs, power should be given to either the Minister of Labour, the registrar of industrial unions, or the court to convene a compulsory conference of the parties.' No section of the workers was of sufficient importance to stop the wheels of industry in New Zea’and, and no employer or section of employers was of sufficient importance to create an industrial upheaval in the Dominion. What the workers claimed was an improved standard of living commensurate with the improved economic opportunity due to new methods of production. If that were conceded it would mean more prosperity all round. Discussing generally the powers of the court, Mr Roberta said the workers were of the opinion that the Industrial Con- ; ciliation and Arbitration Act gave too much power to the court, which should be compelled to follow certain definite rules in regard to wages, hours. of work,, and conditions of employment. The opinion v as expressed that preference to unionists should be a basic principle of the arbitr ■ - tion system.

After other aspects of the question, Mr Roberts concluded:—“The Labour movement claims that the time has arrived when the workers should be allowed so voice in the control and management of industry. At present its members are accused of being irresponsiole, and this no doubt is partly correct, but what is the reason? Is it not the system

itself ? The worker performs a task for a certain wage. He is given no responsibi ity other than the performance of that particular task. The cure for irresponsibility is responsibility, and until you allow the workers a voice in the control and management of industry this irresponsibility will be with you. In other words, !f you gi- e the worker that social and economic status to which he is entitled as one who renders a social service to the community, co-operation and efficiency will take the place of the irresponsibility which the wages system has created.

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE.

REVISION OF COURT’S FUNCTIONS URGED i l- WELLINGTON, April 18. ~ Ke 'axation of a system believed to have tne enect of limiting production was advooated m the paper on the arbitration system of the Dominion, which was presented by Mr H. S. E. Turner on bena.f of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. After summarising the complaints of 200 representative business men against the system, the speaker gave the following summary of tho principal recommendations adopted by the Conference of Associated Chambers The Arbitration Court should be continued if its functions and constitution are revised; payment should be generally by results and should be based on the value and volume of output; the principles enunciated in the Bill providing for payment by piecework should be adopted, and there should be m general less restriction of conditions under which industry may be carried on; conditions in awards should be interpreted reasonably and not with castiron rigidity; it should bo made a penal offence for any persons to coerce or cajole any worker to restrict his output; wages should not be based on such artificial conditions as the size of a man’s family or the pre-war cost of living, but must lie based on the economic position of the .Dominion as a whole, the state of the primary producers, and the interests of the consumer; due regard must be given to the economic fallacy of attempting to maintain wages at an unduly high level under Protection; preference to unionists should be abolished ; full opportunity should be given for all parties affected to make representation* through their own representatives or counsel or other medium ; employers should be advised and must be induced to adopt improved methods and - institute more efficient administration in order to do their full part in the economic readjustment now facing the Dominion. Finally, the conference stated that it was not antagonistic to trades unionism, bu 1 ’ favours its legitimate existence and operations. It had not and would not oppose an Increase in money wages when justifiable. It. nevertheless, unequivocally affirmed the principle that all movements in wages, costs and prices must be directed towards the increase of real wages and a reduction of the cost of living. THE COMPULSORY CLAUSES. WELLINGTON, April 18. Mr W. J. Polson (president of th" Farmers’ L T nion) agreed to-day with ths suggestion of Mr T. 0. Bishop (secretary of the Employers’ Federation) to do away with the compulsory provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. SETTLING DOWN TO BUSINESS. COMMITTEE STAGE REACHED. WELLINGTON, April 19. The National Industrial Conference has now reached its committee stage. The main conference met 'his morning, and later adjourned sine die in order to allow the various committees to meet.

Prior to the adjournment the Business Committee submitted the following report to the conference:—“ It was decided that each of the committees and subcommittees should elect its own chairman from its members, and that the chairman should not have any casting vote. It was resolved that no Hansard or press reports should be taken of committee and sub-committee proceedings The various sub-committees were selected as follows:— Dairy farming Sub-committee. —Messrs W. Bromley, T. O’Byrne, R. Fulton, J. P John, B. Martin, W. Nash, T. S. Weston, W. .1. Polson, G. Finn, J. G. Brechin, A. Morton, and T. S. Middleton. Sheepfarming, Agricultural Farming, and Freezing Industries Sub-committee —Messrs J. Roberts, A L Cook, H. C. Revell, W. Herbert, A. Parlane. C. Baldwin, J. Churchhouse, W. G. Smith, R. D. Acland. C. H. Williams. W. N. Nicholson, H. S. E. Turner, It. S. Chadwick, and J. Carr. Manufacturing Sub-committee. —Messrs T. Bloodworth, A. Black. R. A. Brooks. F. Cornwell, F. R. Cooke, J. Purte.ll. W. H. P. Barber, F. Campbell. R. M. Mor ten, A: G. Henderson, W. W. Mulholland, and T. O. Bishop. Distribution Sub-committee. —Messrs lu. Kennedy, O. M’Brinc, J. Robinson, R. Semple, J. Tucker, H. Worrall, H. H.' Sterling, J. S. Jessop, D. J. M’Gowan, Lt. Mainland, F. Colbeck, and J. Fisher. Joint Committee on Shipping and Transport.—Messrs W. G. Smith, T. O. Bishop, J. S. Jessop, D. J. M’Gowan, H. S. E. Turner, H. H. Stirling, C. H. Wil lianas, J. Roberts, A. Parlane, O. M’Brinc, W. Herbert, J. Churchhouse, and E. Kennedy. Joint Sub-committee on Finance and Economics. —Messrs W. J. Polson, T. S. Weston, W. H. P. Barber, F. Campbell H. D. Acland, J. G. Brechin, A. G. Henderson, and representatives of the workers to be appointed.

Both sides agreed that Mr W. P. Williams (representing tho associated banks; should attend the sittings of the Economic and Finance Committee, which would be glad of his assistance and advice.

It is the opinion of the Business Com mittee that the several committees and sub-committees should refrain from calling evidence except where, in the opinion of

the committee, it is essential to have some expert evidence to elucidate the specific matter under discussion. It was resolved to recommend the following order of reference to the subcommittees : —Each committee to consider the evidence which has been submitted tc the conference and report upon . 1. The effect of the present system of industrial legislation upon the industry (or industries) represented by the*committee having regard to (a) the welfare’ of the industry under consideration; (b) the welfare of the workers in that industry, and (c) the welfare of the employers in that industry. 2- To recommend any amendment of the industrial law which the committee considers necessary in the interest of the industry.

3. To report upon any new methods proposed for the betterment of industry or industrial relations; the Economics and Finance Sub-committee to consider the reports and recommendations of the different sub-committees and their relations to its specific subjects and report to the main committee. A POINT OF AGREEMENT. CONCILIATION SYSTEM APPROVED. WELLINGTON, April 19. One outcome of the Industrial Conference so far is that all sections of the employers represented at the conference have come into line, and accept as a compromise the proposal, made by Mf Bishop, for the Employers’ Federation, that the conciliation system shall be preserved intact, but that appeal to th» Arbitration Count shall no longer b 4 made compulsory. THE ARBITRATION ACT. NOT OPPOSED BY LABOUR UNIONS. WELLINGTON, April 21. There is a clash of opinion in Labour union ranks in Wellington in regard to the industrial conference, and the attitude of the delegates towards the Arbitration Court and other matters. A conference was called in Wellington to decide the policy, and after discussing the course that was to be adopted and the delegates to be appointed, it was generally anticipated in Labour circles "that the papers would present the v’-ws of the movement generally ; but apparently a large section of the workers has not concurred with the opinion expressed, particularly in respect to Mr J. Roberts’s statement of the operation of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

To-day representatives of the Engravers’ Federation, the Shop Assistants and Furnishing Trades’ Federation, the Tailors’ Union, and the Bakers’ Union made a statement, in which they contend that no Labour conference of a national character has ever carried a resolution asking for the repeal of the Act; that the recent conference at which delegates were chosen did not agree to its repeal; that replies to a circular by the Wellington Trades and Labour Council gave a decision decidedly against its repeal; and that fully 95 per cent, of the trade union® in New Zealand are not in favour of such a course.

“ Criticism of the court in the past,” the statement says, “ does not imply that the principle is condemned, but that amendment or improvement is desired.” The protestors emphasise the fact that that there is no justification for the conclusion that the unions have declared against compulsory arbitration.