ARBITRATORS OR LEGISLATORS—WHICH?

Taranaki Daily News, 29 October 1921, Page 11

ARBITRATORS OR LEGISLATORS—WHICH?

CAN THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM SURVIVE? A QUESTION OF INDUSTRIAL FUNCTION. When the original Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was passed in 1894 it was stated to be “an Act to encourage the'formation of unions.” There can be little doubt that the Act has done much in the way of fostering unionism. The first advocates of the Act had probably no conception that unions might be so encouraged as to come in time to regard themselves as the masters of the country. During recent times of good trade several unions of workers undoubtedly came to the conclusion that they were strong enough to dictate. From being unions formed to protect their members’ particular trade interests they have taken on the character of organisation to enthrone class control and propagate the theory and practice of socialist, syndicalist and, to a degree, communist doctrines. This is an extreme departure from the Industrialism of the earlier period. Recent events, suu.i as the bonus question, the reduction in shearers’ rates of pay, and the resignation of the workers’ representative (Mr. J. A. McCullough) have brought fully to light the spirit in which many of the workers’ unions are regarding the Act. They seem to look upon it as an instrument for their special protection and advantage. So long as the Court awarded increases of pay and shortening of hours they would uphold it; but when, owing to changed economic conditions, the Court ceased to grant such concessions to the workers, it was denounced as an enemy of labor, the tool of the capitalists, and

so forth. This denunciation of the Court from the workers’ unions side is added to by some farmers* unions and private employers calling out for the repeal of the Act because of their distinct preference for individual freedom of contract. With these attacks * being made from both the employers’ side and the workers, though only from sections of each, the question is being asked by many, whether our industrial arbitration system can survive ? THE FUNCTION OF ARBITRATION. In our opinion a very much greater danger exists owing to the carelessness of Parliament in loading the Arbitration Court with functional duties which transcend its powers of fulfilment. To give the Court work to do which it cannot possibly accomplish is a likely method of presenting it in the light of failure, possibly to an extent which may destroy public confidence and wreck the whole system. At the time of its inception the Arbitration Act was designed to approximately perform these three functions for the common good:

(a) To protect the workers by prevention of sweating conditions and fixing of fair standards of employment. (b) To protect the employers by settling working conditions for stated time’, and giving security to the fair-minded employers by prevention of undercutting on labor ■costs. (e) To prefect the general public by effecting settlements of industrial disputes without the stoppages of trade and commerce incidental to strikes and lock-outs.

That the conciliation and arbitration system has done very much during the last 26 years in fulfilment of these desirable purposes every honest critic will allow. For a fairly lengthy period of time this Dominion was comparatively free from strikes and lofik-outs, and enjoyed conditions of industrial peace. The early Waihi strike and the watersiders’ strike of 1913 marked a recrudescence of the fever for stopping work. Much of that trouble has been due to the psychological cause of perpetual teaching on the part of the advocates of I.WAV. and other forms of syndicalist thought. Today it is being enunciated in the campaigns of the “Alliance of Labor” and the “N.Z. Workers’ Union” in advocacy of the “One Big Union” ideal, which shortly aims at placing all wage earners in one organisation for purposes of class dictatorship. This propaganda of a class creed cannot, in our opinion, be met by anything the Conciliation Councils and Arbitration Court may do, as the 0.8. U. advocates will take all they can get from the arbitration system and still be ready to throw the system aside when they can dictate by force to their class advantage.

The sectional and t anti-social conception of class unionism can only be dealt with by means of a counter educational propoganda of right ideas inculcating the duties and advantages of social obligations. MAKING THE COURT A LEGISLATURE. Both in Australia and in our Dominion the Governments and Parliaments seem to us to have taken the easy but dangerous course of changing the functions of the Arbitration Court so as to make these tribunals practically secondary legislatures within the respective countries. From being bodies formed to hear and adjudicate on industrial disputes as they arise, the courts have had their powers and duties increased and extended until we find them engaged in: a) Laying down common rules for the industries. (b) Fixing basic wages on the standards of the cost of living. (e) Fixing bonus rates on the basis of statistical calculations on the cost of living. (d) Stating rules for industries in general to be reviewed only under extraordinary circumstances. (e) Fixing family standards of living and payment in ‘ proportion to number of dependents. The policy, due, we believe, to politicians finding it easier to pass the problems on the Arbitration Court than to face the social obligations themselves, is bound to reach a climax. The Court' cannot mould economic law to its will, try how it .may. In our view it would be better to let the Court revert to its simpler function of settling single disputes. As a means of expediting this work, and probably giving more practical consideration, the matter might be considered of adding assessors to the Court from the industry with which the dispute is associated, thus combining the functions of the Conciliation Council and the Court. Not by making the Court an industrial legislature, but making it more practical arbitrator, is the system, in our opinion, likely to be strengthened and made more permanent. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfß- rR League J