Arbitration Act

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19843, 18 May 1927, Page 7

Arbitration Act

FARMERS’ CRITICISM Want Representative to Sit on Court PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS ABOLITION OF CLAUSE SUGGESTED. [ Special to ** Chronicle. " J LEVIN May 17. The Arbitration! Act, and incidentally the Arbitration Court, was discussed at length at the imerprovincial Farmers’ Union Conference at Levin to-day, when no fewer than eight remits upon the subject were tabled. The recommendations included the abolition of the Court, but were mainly concerned with amendments to the Act, such as the abolition of the preference clause, fuller representation of public interests, including a representative of the primary ‘producers, on the Court, and that in all cases affecting the economic position of farmers a fuller statement of the case for the farmers should be allowed.

The president (Mr T. Currie, cf Wanganui) referred to the question in his presidential address, stating that recently the Court appeared to resent some of the criticism passed upon some of its findings. He considered that farmers were quite justified in criticising anything that affected their business, and in his opinion the Court was unfortunate in increasing the shearing rate, which had been responsible for the trouble that aros° later in connection with the freezing industry. While there was an agitation to do away wit.i the Court, he preferred to see -amendments made to the Act first.

Mr J. R. Franklin (Wanganui) said that although he did not feci favourable towards abolition, he thought that if that were decided upon it would strengthen the hands of the Union in getting amendments to the Act, as tnc Government never gave all that was asked for the first time. What was the use of dragging good labour to the level of the poorest? he asked. It was like patching old trousers of which the material was rotten. He preferred paying a man according to his worth, and thus giving the worker an inducement to increase his wages. Such conditions would be for tho general benefit of industry. Four Recommendations. Mr W. Morrison (Maxwell) urged the amendment of the Act in the direction of (1) The abolition of preference to unionists. ihat provision be made for hearing farmers’ representatives at the Court in all cases affecting ihc primary producers. (3) That when an award is under discussion its effect on the industry concerned be carefully considered. (4) That before any union is allowed to declare an organised refusal to accept work, a secret ballot of all workers concerned be taken under strict supervision. Mr Morrison put his suggestion iu the form of an amendment and further suggested that if the Government did not accept the requests of the Farmers’ Union, then the abolition of rhe Court should be fought for. Mr 0. P. Lynch (I’aekakariki) mentioned that the Court was meeting cri icism from all employers, let alone farmers. What he objected to was the academic reasons often given for the Court’s decisions, instead of utilitarian reasons. However, he thought no good couxd be done by abolishing the Court. Mr W. G. Belton (Waveney) thought that every award affected the farmers directly or indirectly, and farmers therefore should have representation on the Court in all cases. He thougnt that the qualifying portion of Mr Morrison’s second suggestion should be deleted. Mr K. W. Dalrymple (Bulls) urged care, as the farmers at the present tune were getting into a good atmosphere with the rest of the community. The Dominion Executive had discussed the matter with the Employers’ Federation and they were distinctly against the abolition of the Court. The Minister of Labour had indicated that he would amend the Act, but in what direction he had not yet stated.

Another Resolution. Mr Dalrymple said he wished to move further: That as the Court has failed in its object and the result of its work has been to place the primary producers in an impossible position by loading all the increased costs of living on them, this conference requests the Do- • minion Excuiivc to take up the question of altering or abolishing the ..Act, so that each section of the community will receive a fair reward for its work. Other speakers urged farmers’ representation on the Court as a real solution of the problem, and said that abolition would be too revolutionary, i Mr Morrison’s suggestions were accepted in favour of the remits, with the addition of the. word “directly” in I Clause 2, which then read: That provision be made for the hearing of farmers’ representatives | in all cases directly affecting the . primary producers. i Mr Dalrymp.c’s amendment was then discussed, but at last Mr Morrison s suggestions were carried. “ON THE WRONG LINES” AUCKLANDER’S SEVERE CRITICISM. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DISCUSSION. (Special to “Chronicle.”) AUCKLAND, May 17. “This is a matter of the greatest importance, and I ihink we should go thoroughly into it,’’ stated Mr A. G. Lunn, president of the Auckland ChamI ber of Commerce, when the question of | the constitution of the Arbitration

Court was before the Council. A letter criticising the present working of the Court was received from Mr H. T. Merritt, vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce, who is now on his way to England. “The present Court system tends to give greater prestige and influence 1o union secretaries than is desirable,” stated Mr Merritt. “It gives them an importance beyond their deserts md provides them with propagandist opportunities detrimental to the real interests of Labour and the State. It permits them to elect one of their own members to the Bench and enables him as their mouthpiece, to record dissenting judgments, full of propaganda, which tend to sow dissension among tho workers, and which, are given greater publicity and weight than if they camo from an ordinary official of a union, other bn the other. This made tho ta.sk of the Court.” Continuing, Mr Merritt declared that the operations of the Court had been largely instrumental in raising wages to the present uneconomic level. The constitution of the Court was largely responsible for this, and unless something was done there would be no end to the demands for higher wages and shorter hours. The crying need of the country was lower costs of production,, and ho claimed that the Court was a bulwark against any attempts in this direction. There were only two ways to end the present unsatisfactory system —cither to repeal the Act in toto or to amend the constitution of the Court. Mr Lunn said the difficulty he could see in the present constitution was that one man was pulling on one side and the other on the other, his made the task of the Judge very difficult,, and probably prevented him from acting in the wav he would often like to act. The matter was referred to a special committee to invstigate and to make □ full report at the next meeting of the