CO129-603-4 Industrial relations- necessity for introducing arbitration procedures 16-10-1946 - 20-12-1946 — Page 56

57

The question of post-war relations between employers and employed was referred to the Whitley" Committee which recorded in its Fourth Report, dealing with Conciliation and Arbitration, a very definite opposition to any system of compulsory arbitration. The Report shews that the Committee, in arriving at this conclusion, had the following points in mind:-

(a) there was no evidence to shew that such a system was generally

desired;

(b) experience of the working of such a system, as evidenced by the

various Munitions of War and related Acts, showed that it was not a successful method of avoiding strikes; and

(c) disputes can only be avoided by agreement between employers and

workers.

The opinions of the Committee were summarised in its final recommendations:

"(a) whilst we are cpposed to any system of Compulsory Arbitration, we are

in favour of an extension of voluntary machinery for the adjustment of disputes. Where the parties are unable to adjust their differences, we think that there should be means by which an independent inquiry may be made into the facts and circumstances of a dispute, and an authoritative pronouncement made thereon, though we do not think that there should be any compulsory power to delaying strikes and lock-outs;

(b) we further recommend that there should be established a Standing

Arbitration Council for cases where the parties wish to refer any dispute to arbitration, though it is desirable that suitable single arbitrators should be available, where the parties so desire."

The establishment of a system of compulsory arbitration whereby all disputes not settled in the process of collective bargaining should be referred for judicial decision clothed with the State's authority and empowered to enforce its decisions with pains and penalties was considered by the Liberal Industrial Inquiry in 1928. The Executive Committee of this Inquiry studied the experiments which had been made in Australia, New Zealand and Germany, and were of opinion that they could not with advantage be imitated in this country because:

(a) compulsory arbitration would be a reversal of the policy of the

Industrial Court under which resort to the Court is voluntary and involves agreement between the two sides;

(b) the lack of accepted principles for defining wage levels in various

industries would result in the decisions of the Court being mere attempts to reach workable compromises rather than applications of accepted rules;

(c) it would be impracticable, if not impossible, to enforce an

unacceptable decision upon powerful organisations covering whole industries; and.

(d) attempts to enforce arbitration might have the effect of diminishing the anxiety of the parties to come to an agreement, since they would know that in a last resort there would be a reference to the Court.

There can be little doubt that prevailing opinion of both employers and workers in this country is opposed to compulsory methods nor does there seem to be any disposition on the part of the country as a whole to depart from the voluntary principle.

From the employers' point of view the objections to compulsory arbitra- tion are based on the principle that their relations with their workers are guided by the play of free competition in which wages and prices fix themselves automatically according to the state of the market. From this standpoint,

23.