Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane October 20, 1894.

Compulsory Arbitration.

In the course of an address on the subject of “Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration” Dr. Garran, who is an ex-editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, was also chairman of the late N.S.W. Council of Arbitration, said:

There is a widespread opinion that seems to have grown up naturally that what needs to be done to make arbitration more generally useful is to insist on having the merits of all important disputes investigated. At present the consent of both parties is necessary. The natural step, therefore, seems to be to cause the inquiry to be made on the application of one party alone, that is of the party anxious to make the inquiry, and which, if not the more convinced of the rightous of its cause, is at least sufficiently so to challenge investigation. In our civil courts in case of non-appearance the judgement goes by default. As a matter of fact, a non-appearance is the exception. When an inquiry has become inevitable a defendant has generally faith enough in his own case to see that a defence is better than no defence. We may reasonably presume that it would be the same with regard to trade disputes, and that it would be the exception when either party would voluntary stand aloof from the inquiry. It would be unfortunate should it prove to be otherwise. All who have practical acquaintance with civil trials know that expert evidence when unchallenged has a very limited value, and I am quite sure that a court of arbitration would be very sorry to have adjudicate on a trade dispute if only one side had been heard and there had been no cross-examination. It will be very desirable, therefore, in case of an obstinate refusal to attend, that somebody should be provided to represent the absent party – some one interested in the defendant's side of the question, and with sufficient knowledge of the trade to be able to cross-examine with effect. It must be admitted, however, that a one-sided inquiry would, even at its best, be unsatisfactory. In such a case the award would simply go for what it was worth. It would be based on the evidence so far as it was obtainable, and so far as it could be sifted, and it would not pretend to be more than that. The arbitrators would do their best possible, and would not pretend that they had done the impossible.

Let us admit that it will be a novelty to set up a system of adjudicating on trades disputes at the instance of one party only; but under the circumstances novelty is unavoidable. We are feeling our way towards a better state of things, and in doing so we have to make experiments. There is no sound political objection to such experiments, so long as there is a fair presumption in their favour, and so long as no fundamental rights or principles are infringed. This proposal to force a hearing of the merits of trade disputes is not in any way a revolutionary proposal. It in no way tends to discourage enterprise or hamper industrial energy; it in no way detracts from the liberty of the employer or wounds the self-respect of the employe'. When a strike or lockout is imminent, it simply calls a halt, and endeavours to ascertain what is the justice of the case. What person, what principle, is injured by such an attempt?

But there is one general conclusion to be drawn from the study of the situation, and it is this – that Parliament is justified in making such further arrangements as will enable a qualified board to get at the rights of every industrial dispute of any magnitude, so far as it can do so without infringing on the liberty of the subject. We may fairly say that we have reached the stage at which our experience has made this clear, and if so, the next forward movement is no longer doubtful.

* * *

The Sydney Daily Telegraph approves of Dr. Garran's utterances. The Brisbane press in all liklihood would condemn them. When it is a question of industrial conciliation or arbitration in this province, the Queensland Fat Man editors write in a “how not to do it” strain.