THE ARBITRATION ACT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16500, 18 November 1927, Page 12

THE ARBITRATION ACT

PASTORALISTS’ VIEWPOINT “ONE-SIDED COMPULSORY CLAUSES” POVERTY BAY PROTEST The Gisborne, branch of the New Zealand .Federation of Employers discussed recently the proposed amendments to the Industrial 'Arbitration and Conciliation Act and approved the proposals wholeheartedly. The attitude of the Poverty Bay Sheepowners’ Federation on the proposals is widely divergent from that of the Employers’ Federation, and there is every indication that the two big organisations will be on opposite sides when the matter comes up for general discussion.

Ono of the chief causes of discontent anion# the pastoralists is that, though the Government has proposed t<> exempt the primary industries from the control of the court, those industries will still he affected by the awards covering the sheltered industries which handle their products; another is that the compulsory clauses in the Act are one-sided, and that if it is impracticable to apply compulsion |o the workers in. an industry, if is inequitable to apply it. fo ’ (lie mast ers.

The Poverty Bay district, committee of "the Bhecpowncrs ’ Federation has already made representations to the district members and the Prime Minister, putting forward its viewpoint on the principal proposals. At the end of October it advised the Prime Minister that in the opinion of sheepowners in Poverty Bay the proposal to amend the constitution of the Arbitration Court appeared to have little value in practice. It would bo extremely difficult, the letter pointed out, to find competent or expert arbitrators, and the autocratic power of the judges, of which complaint had been made already, would be increased instead of being curtailed as a result. The exemption of the farming industries was considered to be a slop in the right direction, for which the Government was thanked, but the praise was qualified. “The step is of little practical value as long as we are under the heel of the sheltered industries and at the mercy of the shipping and cargoworking groups and the freezing workers,” the Prime Minister was advised. “It cannot be of full benefit to primary production until the anomalies in the Arbitration Act, which we have complained of, are removed.” PAYMENT BY RESULT,S On the question of payment by results, the Government was also given credit for moving to bring about a great improvement in industrial efficiency. “This measure .... should tend to reduce costs while increasing the earning power of the skilled worker, and increasing the real value of wages,” the Sheepowners’ Federation letter stated. “But we fear that

the amendment may fail in its purpose unless power is granted to the employer to pay at piecework rates, if lie so desires. With the suggested Syording of clause 13, wherein it is not mandatory on the court to embody provisions for payment by piecework, it is clear that any desire on the part of the employers in that direction can be blocked easily by the trades unions, especially where a ‘preference to unionists’ clause exists.” While the Bhoopowners’ Federation committee gives, its countenance to the proposals so far as they go, it is emphasised that the most objectionable features of the Act are not in any way modified. “The Act is still compulsory upon one party, viz., the employer,” the committee’s letter proceeds. “The judge still has power to insert, the preference to unionists clause in any award, 1 and thereby encourage'strikes and every form of irritation tactics. 'Pile trade unions still have power to inflict financial loss to any extent upon any employer or group of employers, and upon the country as a whole, without any redress being possible. In our memorandum presented to the Government in July and August we called attention to these and other anomalies, and we expected remedies. We now venture to reiterate some of our suggestions.”

COMPULSORY CLAUSES

On the matter of compulsion, the letter states that unless it is possible to repeal the Act altogether, and since compulsion cannot be applied to the workers, the compulsory clauses in the Act should be repealed altogether. Those unions of employers and employees who found the Act satisfactory could then continue to work under the court, and the awards of the court would gain a binding quality upon both parties to any dispute,- a quality at present entirely lacking so far as the workers arc concerned. It would allay the constant friction and irritation of unnecessary disputes, and foster a more conciliatory spirit between employers and employees. "We disagree entirely with the principle of preference to unionists, which we consider provides the agitator or strike promotor with his strongest weapon, and deprives the employer of his only means of defence against illegal attack,” the memorandum continues. "The power of removal, of the clause by the court, at its discretion, is useless, as the process involves too much delay. The storm of protest that has arisen from, every section of the community against each and every suggested amendment is proof of our contention that the law of compulsory arbitration is wrong fundamentally, and cannot be put right by superficial amendment. The exemption of the primary producers from the scope of the Act is an admissisou that the principle is only workable when bolstered up by tariff protection,; or other protective circumstances. The general dissatisfaction with things as they are is proof of flie failure of the existing Act. To leave the Act in its present form is to invite disaster to the Dominion, and continued and progressive increase of unemployment; to amend the Act satisfactorily seems to be beyond the power of the (lovernment. The only alternative appears to us to be the course we have so strongly recommended, namely the abandonment of the principle of compulsory conciliation and arbitration altogether, the repeal of the present Act, and a determined effort after full investigation to frame something less obnoxious to a l'reedom-lovlng people.” THE PIECEWORK' OPTION.

The proposals were the subject of further representations to the .Prime .Minister durhlg the current week, the following telegraen having been dispatched to Mr. J. (1. Coates: “VVe consider exemption of the farming industry from the Arbitration Act sin encouragement of piecework at 'employers’ option. This is an important step in the right direction, for which the farmers of this district thank you. Wo strongly urge you to adhere to these proposals, and

puss thorn through (ho House this session. We consider the Act cannot be satisfactory while compulsion is only on the employers.” In support of those representations, the sheep-owners state that the exemption of the farming, industry will give u certain amount, of relief, on account ol the removal of award restrictions on hours of work and other considerations. The evidence of Mr. Nicholson, secretary of the New Zealand Sheep-owners’ Federation, before the Labor Bills Committee in Wellington, was generally admitted to he the most useful heard in inspect to the amendment of the Arbitration Act, and Mr. Nicholson piu dneed statistics which showed that since 1.914 the expenses of farming had risen to an enormous extent. He showed that land tax had increased by 05 per cent., countv rates by 138, valuation of land by 45, general cost of living 63, and farm wages 47|. On (he other hand, it is shown that 'mortgages have increased by 151 per cent., and the level of export prices to-day is only 38 per cent, higher than in lSi4. On the question of exempting the produce of farms from the influence of the Act, Mr. Nicholson was able to show that Hip policy of the Court had resulted in the addition of a big percentage to the costs of marketing the primary produce of the Dominion. He quoted the effect of the new award given to the shearers in 1926, which added 11109,000 per annum to the costs of shearing New Zealand’s sheep, this despite the fact that the cost of living was lower by 8J- per cent, in 1926 than in 1921, when the last award was given.