RETAIN COURT, EMPLOYERS SAY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18442, 18 April 1928, Page 4

RETAIN COURT, EMPLOYERS SAY.

VIEWS OF THEORISTS ARE CRITICISED.

INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE CONSIDERS STATEMENT. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April IS. In placing a statement of its views before the National Industrial Conference to-daj r the New Zealand Employers’ Federation suggested that the Arbitration Court should be retained in its present form and that a combination of the best features of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Labour Disputes Investigation Act should be effected, so that the best features of each would be retained. In the presentation of the employers' views it was stated that the criticism of theorists, economists and others, who had had no experience whatever of dealing with organised Labour, should not be given value. The weakness of all such criticism was that those from whom it emanated were ignorant of facts which were only brought home by practical experience. To those actually engaged in industrial negotiations there were three obvious points of criticism in the Arbitration Act: (1) The Judge of the Court might be a faddist or a man of strong prejudices, dishonest, without the necessary economic and business judgment, and weak in character; (2) Awards of the Court might be too inelastic and restrictive as to details; (3) Councils did not take into sufficient consideration the effect of wages paid upon the general public, and this was accentuated by the fact that the consumer could not appear by his representatives before the Court. “So far the first has not been apparent,” ♦ the statement continued, “because successive Judges of the Court have been men of the very highest calibre. It is, however, a possible danger. As to the second, while it is true that in many cases awards appear to be unduly restrictive, it is a fact that in the majority of cases the restrictive provisions, apart from what may be called standard clauses covering hours, wages, overtime and similar matters, have come into awards by mutual agreement of the parties. As to the third, if there were no Court there is at least as great a danger that masters and men in a sheltered industry would, in the absence of the Arbitration Court, agree upon rates of pay which, having regard to the conditions of unsheltered industries, are inequitable. If anything the danger is greater, because one of the duties of the Arbitration Court Judge is to consider the effects of an award upon the general public and the community as a whole." Summarising the arguments advanced the statement placed before the conference the following:— (1) The Arbitration Act has given us a greater measure of industrial peace than has been enjo3 T ed by any other British community during the period of its operation. (2) It has broken down the old hostility 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 fluctuation in either direction, a national evil as causing corresponding excessive fluctuations in prices. On the other hand: (1) The arbitration system is not compulsory, but operates in any industry at the option of the workers. W Although the great majority of unions accept the awards made by the Court, experience has shown that the awards are not enforceable against strong unions against their will. 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 an agreement between employers and their employees contrary to the public interest.