The Farmington times., 1916-12-22
Compulsory
Arbitration

Editor Times:- Since President
Wilson has recommended to Congress
in his annual message a law prohibit
ing strikes or lockouts until the matter
in controversy can be Investigated,
would it not be of interest both to
employees and employer to know
something about the only compulsory
arbitration law enacted by any ma
ton. These laws were passed in 1894
in the Australasian Colony of New
Zealand and subsequently adopted by
New South Wales and Western Aus
tralia. The author Of the New Zea-
land law was the Hon. William Penn
ber Reeves, Minister of Labor, and
the law has been one of the most
widely discussed measures ever pass
ed by any congress, parliament or
legislature. The agitation in New
Zealand for some form of arbitration
law dates from 1890. In that year
occurred the Maritime strike, labor
conflict which spread sympathetical-
ly from the shipping world to all
forms of industry in Australasia and
practically divided the society of the
colony into two hostile camps.
In order to obviate experiences of this
sort in the future, the New Zealand
Minister of Labor made a special
study of efforts to avoid strikes in
England, Germany, France and the
United States, and finally came to the
conclusion that neither conciliation
nor voluntary arbitration would suf-
flee, but that the only practicable
remedy for his country was compul-
sorry arbitration. Attempts to secure
the passage of compulsory arbi-
tration law failed in 1892 and 1893
but were successful in 1894, when a
bill providing for compulsory arbi-
tration passed the Colonial Parlia-
ment. The law as passed in 1894, and
as subsequently amended, applies on
ly to those industries wherein trade
unions are established, but permits a
trade union to be formed in any indus
| try by the action of any seven work
men. The law does not in any way
hinder conciliation or prevent volun-
tary arbitration, and only after con-
ciliation has been exhausted is re-
sort had to compulsory arbitration
The obligation to arbitrate, however
is final and conclusive whenever the
two parties do not come to an agree
ment voluntarily, and breach of the
award may, in the discretion of the
Arbitration Court, be visited by fine
or Imprisonment. The method Of
procedure in New Zealand is as fol.
lows. There is in each of the sever
districts into which the colony is di'
vided Board of Cancellation com
posed of from four to six men choser
by the unions and by the associations
of employers, together with chair
man elected by all, who is usually ar
outsider and casts the deciding vote
There is only one Court of Arbitration
for the country, this court consisting
of three persons appointed by thl
Governor for three years. Of these
three members one is a judge of the
Supreme Court, and the others, nomi
nees of the unions and of the EN-
ployers respectively. In cases of un
usual difficulty, or requiring exact OF
technical knowledge, two experts ma!
be chosen, one from each side. From
the Board of Cancellation an appea
always lies to the Court of Arbitra
ton, but the action taken by the Cour
of Arbitration is final and withou
appeal. "No award or proceeding o.
the Court" says the act, "shall bt
J liable to be challenged, appealed
J against, reviewed, quashed, or called
, in question by any Court Of Judlca
J ture on any account whatever. Meth
! er the Board of Cancellation nor tn
, Court of Arbitration may take the in
J itiative in any dispute between EN-
} ployers and employees, but each act
, only when called upon by one or tn
, other of the parties. This does no
J detract from its powers, since an,
J single aggrieved employe may brlnj
} the matter in controversy before tn
! Board and ultimately before tn
J Court and secure an award. Thes
} awards are made binding not onl
upon the particular employer or as
J sociation of employers involved, bu
) also upon all employers in the sam
} district or even in the entire colon!
The Court thus establishes uniforr
q rules for the whole industry for
! period of one, two or three year.
The scope of the Court of Arbitratio
in making such general or commo
= rules is not limited. Since 1894, tn
act, which was originally intende
e chiefly to prevent strikes, has bee
extended continually in its scope an
jurisdiction, until it is now used as
D means of establishing minimum rate
J. of wages, maximum number of hour
o and such general conditions of labC
a as the relations of union to non-ul
| ;o,, wan +ba ,,sa of safety annliance