The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1908. THE NEW ARBITRATION BILL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13643, 10 July 1908, Page 4

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1908. THE NEW ARBITRATION BILL.

In any system of [ compulsory arbitration, when we get down to bedrock, the important consideration-is the method to - be adopted for making the result of an arbitration case binding upon both parties 'o the suit. Unless thab can be done, the system must bo-convicted of failure, and the pretence of icompulsory arbitration must be cast to the winds. The acci}racy of this contention is nob. denied by the Government; it lias, on the other hand, been candidly admitted by the head of the Cabinet.. " If the system of conciliation and arbitration is to stand," said the 'Premier in the .course of his 1' inancial Statement on Tuesday evening, " we must insure that the awards of. the Arbitration Court are inspected by both sides. If we cannot) achieve this, ' then inevitably the Act must be repealed." . In , another 1 column we give a summary of the amending Arbitration Bill which has already been foriiially put through its - first arid second readings in the House of Representatives, and sent on for examination | by the Labour Bills Committee. Believing as we do that .the machinery for formulating an award in an industrial dispute is secondary in: importance to the .provisions for enforcing the award when I it is made; we propose to devote attention particularly to the enforcement clauses-of-the Bill. It is to be noted that the' Government's proposals recognise the secondary importance of awards, for we find that even where there is no award or industrial agreement in. existence,'workers avlio take part in a strike,, or who assist others strikers, render themselves liable to a fine, with the further liability of imprisonment "in cases where . their l action is calculated to resulb in serious inconvenience to the public; as in industries connected - with ■ the supply of ,the staple articles of food' and the manufacture - of illuminants. In the case of an ordinary • strike, the worker exposes liimself to a personal penalty of £lO, ' with the alternative, in the special cases we have mentioned, of three months' imprisonment. Proceedings are to be taken before ..a . magistrate, . a right 01. appeal' lying to -the Arbitration Court, i Sofar there "is . nothing • revolutionary; in all this.The prosecutions against the. slaughtermen ■ last year established the liability of strikers to fine and imprisonment, so that apparently the main effect, of .the : new Bill is merely to accelerate the action of the law by throwing: prosecutions, < against'.strikers . into the courts of the stipendiary magistrates instead of -confining them . ; to.; the: single Arbitration' Couyfc. Experience has proved, however, ;thatf'the potential of : fine- and-. imprison-

ment are not sufficient to deter men from striking. The new 13ill in its main features adds nothing, for instance, to the punishment which the present Act is able to inflict, say, upon bakers who iuvolvo themselves in a strike. In what way, tlien, is the new Bill an improvement upon the old Act. The Minister for Labour has told . a reporter that in his opinion its grout merit is the provision made-for the cancellation of a Union as a penalty for striking. Wo may be wrong, but we fancy Mr Millar is a little sanguine in presuming that tnfs provision will operate as a deterrent to strikes, but it remains to bo seen whether it will do so or not. A much more obvious innovation, to which perhaps the Minister is nob anxious to attract too much attention, is the machinery provided for the collection of a fine inflicted' upon a striker. Portions of any wages he may subsequently earn are to be attachable for the satisfaction 01 an unpaid, fine, and nis employer, tinder pain of having to liquidate the line himself, is to bo-required to make deductions fronii the employee's wages until the fine is cleared off. The, ■employer, thai is, must undertake a duty which the Labour Department, with till, the resources at its command, is eit'ier unable or unwilling to discharge. V..« quite recognise that this will be an cllejtive remedy against a striker, but we are far from satisfied that it is a fn'r , position to force upon an employer.