Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894

Last updated

Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
New Zealand Parliament
Legislative history
Introduced by William Pember Reeves
Passed1894
Amended by
1936, 1961
Related legislation
Industrial Relations Act 1973, Labour Relations Act 1987, Employment Contracts Act 1991, Employment Relations Act 2000
Status: Repealed

The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894 was a piece of industrial relations legislation passed by the Parliament of New Zealand in 1894. Enacted by the Liberal Government of New Zealand, it was the world's first compulsory system of state arbitration. [1] It gave legal recognition to unions and enabled them to take disputes to a Conciliation Board, consisting of members elected by employers and workers.

Contents

If the Board's decision was unsatisfactory to either side, an appeal could be made to the Arbitration Court, consisting of a Supreme Court judge and two assessors, one elected by employers' associations and another by unions.

The 1966 Encyclopaedia of New Zealand stated: "After some 70 years of operation, the industrial conciliation and arbitration system has become a firmly accepted – perhaps even a traditional – way of determining minimum wage rates and handling industrial disputes. It has been subject to many criticisms from time to time, and occasionally to heavier sectional attacks, but no suggestion for its abolition has ever succeeded in gaining any significant measure of support from the employers' and workers' organisations... or from the community generally." [2] The Act remained in force until 1973, but the essential structure that it established lasted until the Fourth National Government introduced the Employment Contracts Act 1991.

The process by which the Act came into being needs study in its own right and was based on a scheme devised by a South Australian politician, Charles Kingston.

Terms

Registration of unions under the Act was voluntary, and unions could choose to remain outside the Act and negotiate directly with employers. If a union registered, it was bound to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Court and could not, for example, strike against terms laid down by it. As a result, in the early 20th century, some militant and/or strong unions chose not to register. However most unions and their members benefitted from the Act, as few had the power to negotiate terms that were better than those laid down by the Court. The Act forbade the registration of unions if one already existed in the same industry and area. That prevented competition among unions. The Court could also both make 'awards' that bound all employers and workers in a particular industry and set down minimum conditions and rates of pay, but organisations not party to the original award could apply for a complete or partial exemption from the award. [3]

1936 amendment

The First Labour Government's 1936 amendment had two major provisions: the 40-hour week and compulsory unionism. Awards could not require more than 40 hours work a week except for overtime, which was to be arranged, if possible, so that no part of the working week fell on a Saturday. Exemptions could be made if a 40-hour week was impractical, which rarely occurred. The amendment also made it illegal to employ a worker who was not a member of a union bound by the relevant award or agreement for that industry. It also restored the power of the Arbitration Court and required the court to factor in the needs of wives and dependent children of workers when making general wage orders. [4]

1961 amendment

The 1961 amendment, passed by the Second National Government abolished compulsory unionism unless unions and employers agreed otherwise or if 50% of relevant workers voted for compulsory unionism in their industry. Even without compulsory union membership, since employers were still required to prefer union members if they were equally qualified to non-union workers, the amendment had little practical impact.

Related Research Articles

Labour laws, labour code or employment laws are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, employer, and union.

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), known from 1956 to 1973 as the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and from 1973 to 1988 as the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, was a tribunal with powers under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 that existed from 1956 until 2010. It was the central institution of Australian labour law. The AIRC replaced a previous system of industrial courts, which broadly speaking, was engaged in the same functions, but with superior independence and powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian labour law</span> Rights and duties of workers, unions and employers in Australia

Australian labour law sets the rights of working people, the role of trade unions, and democracy at work, and the duties of employers, across the Commonwealth and in states. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work Commission creates a national minimum wage and oversees National Employment Standards for fair hours, holidays, parental leave and job security. The FWC also creates modern awards that apply to most sectors of work, numbering 150 in 2024, with minimum pay scales, and better rights for overtime, holidays, paid leave, and superannuation for a pension in retirement. Beyond this floor of rights, trade unions and employers often create enterprise bargaining agreements for better wages and conditions in their workplaces. However, in 2024 collective agreements only cover 15% of employees, while 22% of employees are classified as "casual", meaning that they lose many basic protections other workers have. Australia's laws on the right to take collective action are among the most restrictive in the developed world, and Australia does not yet have a general law protecting workers' rights to vote and elect worker directors on corporation boards as do most other wealth OECD countries.

The Australian labour movement began in the early 19th century and since the late 19th century has included industrial and political wings. Trade unions in Australia may be organised on the basis of craft unionism, general unionism, or industrial unionism. Almost all unions in Australia are affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), many of which have undergone a significant process of amalgamations, especially in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The leadership and membership of unions hold and have at other times held a wide range of political views, including socialist, democratic and right-wing views.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1951 New Zealand waterfront dispute</span> Industrial dispute

The 1951 New Zealand waterfront dispute was the largest and most widespread industrial dispute in New Zealand history. During the time, up to twenty thousand workers went on strike in support of waterfront workers protesting against financial hardships and poor working conditions. Thousands more refused to handle "scab" goods. The dispute was sometimes referred to as the waterfront lockout or waterfront strike. It lasted 151 days, from 13 February to 15 July 1951. During the lockout, the Watersiders' Union was deregistered and its funds and records were seized, and 26 local watersiders' unions were set up in its place.

<i>Canada Labour Code</i> Canadian employment legislation

The Canada Labour Code is an Act of the Parliament of Canada to consolidate certain statutes respecting labour. The objective of the Code is to facilitate production by controlling strikes & lockouts, occupational safety and health, and some employment standards.

<i>Harvester case</i> Australian labour law decision

Ex parte H.V. McKay, commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The case arose under the Excise Tariff Act 1906 which imposed an excise duty on goods manufactured in Australia, £6 in the case of a stripper harvester, however if a manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages to its employees, it was excused from paying the excise duty. The Court therefore had to consider what was a "fair and reasonable" wage for the purpose of the act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration</span> Australian court (1904 to 1956)

The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was an Australian court that operated from 1904 to 1956 with jurisdiction to hear and arbitrate interstate industrial disputes, and to make awards. It also had the judicial functions of interpreting and enforcing awards and hearing other criminal and civil cases relating to industrial relations law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liberal Government of New Zealand</span> First responsible government, 1891–1912

The Liberal Government of New Zealand was the first responsible government in New Zealand politics organised along party lines. The government formed following the founding of the Liberal Party and took office on 24 January 1891, and governed New Zealand for over 21 years until 10 July 1912. To date, it is the longest-serving government in New Zealand's history. The government was also historically notable for enacting significant social and economic changes, such as the Old Age Pensions Act and women's suffrage. One historian described the policies of the government as "a revolution in the relationship between the government and the people".

The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission, as constituted under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, conciliates and arbitrates industrial disputes, sets conditions of employment and fixes wages and salaries by making industrial awards, approves enterprise agreements and decides claims of unfair dismissal in the State of Western Australia, with respect to those employers not regulated by the Commonwealth of Australia under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The history of minimum wage is about the attempts and measures governments have made to introduce a standard amount of periodic pay below which employers could not compensate their workers.

The Court of Arbitration was the first court in New South Wales, a state of Australia which dealt exclusively with industrial relation disputes in the early twentieth century. Justice Lance Wright claims that it perhaps was the first court of its type in the world. The court was unique at that time as it was the first court of its type to deal with labour relations between employer and employees on a compulsory basis. Previous arbitration measures between employer and employee had been on a voluntary basis or had been based on the criminal justice system through the use of criminal penalties. The conventional economic model is that both employer and employee enjoy equal bargaining power to set wages and conditions. This asserts that both parties are able to agree on a fair market price for the cost of labour free from distortions. However, where employers or employees group together, these outcomes can be distorted particularly in “boom” or “bust” economic conditions. The purpose of the court was to change the manner in which employers and employees negotiated pay and conditions. It was an attempt to reduce the power imbalances between employer groups or employee unions that arose from using collective bargaining, and the resulting use of that market power to influence wages, and also to reduce the threat of lockout or strikes to achieve those ends.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904</span> Act of the Parliament of Australia, no longer in force, registered as C1904A00013

The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) was an Act of the Parliament of Australia, which established the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, besides other things, and sought to introduce the rule of law in industrial relations in Australia. The Act received royal assent on 15 December 1904.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1913 Great Strike</span> 1913 near general strike in New Zealand

The Great Strike refers to a near general strike that took place in New Zealand from October 1913 to mid-January 1914. It was the largest and most disruptive strike in New Zealand's history. At its height, it brought the economy of New Zealand almost to a halt. Between 14,000 and 16,000 workers went on strike, out of a population of just over one million.

The Dollar Sweets dispute in 1985 was a small industrial dispute in Australia with major legal ramifications in industrial relations where an employer resorted to a common law verdict and damages in a case in the Supreme Court of Victoria to resolve a dispute after industrial courts proved ineffective. It was the first time a trade union was forced to pay common law damages to an employer for losses suffered through picketing in Australia. The dispute was also significant for boosting the career of the barrister representing the company, Peter Costello, leading him to stand for federal Parliament and become Treasurer in the Howard Government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938</span> United States wage law

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 29 U.S.C. § 203 (FLSA) is a United States labor law that creates the right to a minimum wage, and "time-and-a-half" overtime pay when people work over forty hours a week. It also prohibits employment of minors in "oppressive child labor". It applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. The Act was enacted by the 75th Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938.

The Employment Court of New Zealand is a specialist court for employment disputes. It mainly deals with issues arising under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Employment Court is a court of record and has equal standing to the High Court of New Zealand.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<i>Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd</i> Landmark Australian court case

Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd, commonly known as the Woodworkers case or the Sawmillers case was a decision of the High Court of Australia in 1909 concerning the question whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could make an award that was inconsistent with a State wages board determination. The High Court was divided 2:2 and thus the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed, in what is sometimes described as a statutory majority. Griffith CJ, O'Connor J agreeing, held that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with the minimum wages fixed by a Wages Board under a State law.

The 1908 Blackball miners' strike was industrial action that happened when seven miners in the small town of Blackball, on New Zealand's West Coast, were dismissed for taking longer than their allocated fifteen minutes, for lunch. This was one of many issues that were causing discontent within the coal-mining industry that was set up as a series of capitalist enterprises to meet the shipping needs of Britain as an imperial power. When Blackball township was established, the mining company provided low-quality living and working conditions for the miners and after the town became populated by immigrants with union experience overseas, some of the grievances that eventually resulted in the strike emerged. The strike has been seen as a formative event in New Zealand history because of the successful outcome for the miners from the eleven-week strike by the use of direct action and organised unionism. This was the first real challenge to the Arbitration Court, set up under legislation by the Liberal Government in 1894 to support mediation in industrial disputes, and highlighted the difficulties of getting a resolution because of the wide range of political, social and cultural factors that resulted in a degree of intransigence by both the miners and the mine company. A number of the leading strikers subsequently became leaders in the political labour movement.

References

  1. "Monumental Stories | Landmark". Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 2 July 2007.
  2. LABOUR, DEPARTMENT OF - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - 1966 Encyclopaedia of New Zealand
  3. 1966 Encyclopaedia.
  4. Gustafson, Barry (1986). From the Cradle to the Grave: A biography of Michael Joseph Savage. Auckland, New Zealand: Reed Methuen. p. 185. ISBN   0-474-00138-5.