PROPOSALS MIGHT STIR UP TROUBLE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18466, 18 May 1928, Page 4

PROPOSALS MIGHT STIR UP TROUBLE.

DISCUSSION TAKES PLACE ON ARBITRATION. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, May 18. Further arguments against compulsory arbitration were advanced at today’s sitting of the. National Industrial Conference. Professor Belshaw (Auckland) suggested that the question whether arbitration should be compulsory or optional should be left to the decision of the majority of the workers and the employers concerned in a particular industry. Mr Cornwell said he regarded the employers’ proposals as an attack on the whole of the working conditions which the workers had been successful in attaining by negotiation and with the assistance of the Court. The proposals suggested by the employers wanted to stir up trouble before the election. Mr N. E. S. Turner said he thought the employers would be wise if they made haste slowly. Mr J. Churchbouse said that the workers were not prepared to do away with the Arbitration Court till something better took its place. Mr H. D. Acland said that the primary producers had been always strongly opposed to compulsory arbitration. Professor Belshaw said he thought that despite the breakdown the conference had achieved some results. He believed that a majority of the workers favoured compulsion. It was tragic that the conference had found it impossible to reach unanimity on this vital question. Mr W. Bromley agreed with Professor Belshaw. Mr Bloodworth, speaking as chairman of the special sub-committee said that Professor Belshaw’s proposal had been very carefully considered, but it it had bene felt that no machinery existed for securing the opinion of industry as to whether Arbitration should be compulsory or optional. If the emplyers favoured the optional system and the employees favoured compulsion there would be an immediate deadlock. There was also the danger that agreements reached under compulsion would have a big influence on optional agreements, and he did not think the two systems would work satisfactorily side by side. Mr Kennedy expressed the opinion that there was no possibility of industrial peace in New Zealand and Mr Jessep said that he was listening to some of the closing speeches of the conference with sadness. He would like to appeal to the other side to recognise when they disbanded that the absolute necessity of getting efficiency in industry was the factor influencing the desire of the employers to get industry away from the hard and fast jurisdiction of the court. Mr Roberts, in replying to the debate, regretted that they had not come to an agreement. The only thing to do was to pass the proposals on to Parliament. The report which the representatives of the employers will submit to the Prime Minister this afternoon states: “It is a matter of very great regret to all delegates that it has been found impossible to present a joint recommendation. The employers’ sole desire is to improve the system of arbitration so that industries may develop on sound economic lines, thus improving the position of the workers as well as the employers. The opinion is strongly expressed that any further extension of the arbitration system to the primary industries is impracticable and unwise.

The Industrial Conference to-day passed the following resolution: “That this conference - desires to place on record its appreciation of the assistance it has received in its deliberations from publications isstied by the International Labour Conference, Geneva, and suggests to the Government that it shpuld take into consideration the desirability of New Zealand being represented at future conferences of the international labour organisation as New Zealand is entitled to be represented as a member of the League of Nations.”