ARBITRATION AMENDMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 24 October 1930, Page 9

ARBITRATION AMENDMENT

COMPULSORY CONCILIATION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VIEWS. \ RETARDATION OF PRODUCTION, By Telegraph.—Press Association. The Hermitage,- Oct. 23. .At the conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce to-day Mr. U. Cameron (Dunedin) moved: “That it is in the interests of the community that the compulsory clauses of the Arbitration Act be abolished.” In moving the remit Mr. Cameron said the Dunedin chamber wits of opinion that the compulsory clauses of the Act, as in operation, were severely hampering industry, retarding production, increasing unemployment and creating an illfeeling between employer and employee which should not exist. Manufacturers felt that the present system of compulsory arbitration was inequitable and was increasing the cost of production. Farmers felt with good reason that it was largely repsonsible fqi’ the high costs oi all their requirements. It .was claimed for compulsory arbitration that it would abolish strikes, but what had been the results? From the inception of the system up to 1905 the total number of strikes in New Zealand was 148, 53 in contravention of the Act and 95 outside it. From 1900 to 1920 the total number of stoppages was 095, which was rather too many for a country without strikes. The main objections to the system were that it was inelastic. There was no element of give and take. A dispute or an 7 application for a new award became a fight between the employei - and a labour union secretary. If the Conciliation Court did not appeal to Labour •the speaker suggested another alternative in the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, which was now on the Statute Book and which was operating successfully in .Canada. The speaker stated that the main objections to the present system were: (a) Hampering industry; (b) retarding production; (c) increasing unemployment; (d) that it was too inelastic and did not take into account the all-important factor, what will the industry stand? MrC W. Machin (Christchurch) seconded and said that they were able to debate the subject at great length. He was entirely in accord with the reasons advanced by the Dunedin chamber, ■ Mr. A. Seed (Wellington) said he was in accord with the remit, but it did not go far enough. He suggested that the Act should be amended to make compulsory the reference of disputes to Conciliation Councils.

Mr. Cameron (Dunedin): “We are, quite agreeable to the amendment in the form suggested.” The remit was then amended to read: “That it is in the interests of the community the compulsory clauses of the Arbitration Act be abolished and that an amendment be made to the Act to the effect that the reference of disputes to Conciliation Councils should be compulsory.” The remit was adopted in its amended form.