Despite its apparent efficiency, we do not see how such a process would foster settlements or ensure the enduring resolution of disputes. Management and labour both voiced strong opposition to this proposal to allow direct Ministerial action. Both saw the increased level of intervention implicit in the recommendation as counter- productive in the longer term. The consensus group categorically rejected the notion of the Minister having such broad, sweeping interventionist powers. Despite our observations, we fully recognize that intervention sometimes becomes necessary and must remain an option.
Specific legislation is the best method of taking that intervention.
It would help, however, if the Minister had a better and more visible ability to monitor the potential for public harm as the dispute unfolds. The parties also would benefit from the ability to have input into how the dispute should be resolved. This would help make the resulting collective agreement more palatable. To this end we are recommending that the Minister be given statutory authority to appoint a panel of up to three advisors with the specific responsibility for monitoring and advising on the public interest in any dispute where the Minister thinks it is advisable. We do not see these panels trying to settle the disputes or being involved in mediation.