Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/269

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
Conciliation and Arbitration
247

the ordinary Conciliation Boards, but all the members, except the chairman, must be experts in the trade in which the dispute has occurred, and when the dispute has been settled they vacate office. Up to the present time, no application has been made for setting up any of these Special Boards.

That was the first blow to the Conciliation Boards. The second blow came in 1901, and a pathway was then opened up for completely ignoring them. Previously, it was impossible for a dispute to reach the Court without first going through one of the Boards, and being referred from a Board to the tribunal. The amendment of 1901 allows disputes to be taken straight to the Court on the application of either party. This step was first taken in committee of the House of Representatives. The amendment was moved by a member who is a private employer of labour, at an early hour of the morning, after an all-night sitting, and it was carried by a thin and jaded House. As soon as the amending Bill was passed through committee, and was reported, Mr. Seddon expressed his deep regret at what had been done.

“This is bound to cause friction with the workers,” he said. “It will create a feeling of resentment, because they will consider that they have now no opportunity to conciliate. It would have been wiser if we had provided that both sides should consent to a case going to the Court before the Board could be superseded.” There was still some hope that the Boards would be saved from the slight the House placed upon them. The Legislative Council had consistently and strenuously opposed arbitration and supported conciliation. Conciliation had been practically struck out of the measure. Would the Upper House insist upon its retention, bringing forth five cogent “reasons,” showing that the Boards would be “more successful in the settlement of disputes?” This was in Mr. Seddon’s mind when the amendment was sent to the Legislative Council. He had bowed to the will of the majority in the House, but he felt convinced that the members of the other chamber would be consistent throughout and would refuse to agree to the sweeping change.