Lockout in United Kingdom

Arbitration and Conciliation

The extent to which the methods of arbitration and conciliation can be expected to afford a substitute for strikes and lockouts is one on which opinions differ very widely. The difficulties arising from the impossibility of enforcing Future scope and limits. agreements or awards by legal process have already been discussed. Apart from these, however, it is evident that both methods imply that the parties, especially the work-people, are organized at least to the extent of being capable of negotiating through agents. In some industries (e.g. agriculture or domestic service) this preliminary condition is not satisfied; in others the men’s leaders possess little more than consultative powers, and employers may hesitate to deal either directly or through a third party with individuals or committees who have so little authority over those whom they claim to represent. And even where the trade organizations are strong, some employers refuse in any way to recognize the representative character of the men’s officials.

The question of the “recognition” of trade unions by employers is a frequent cause of disputes (see information about Strikes here) It may be observed, however, that it often occurs that in cases in which both employers and employed are organized into associations which are accustomed to deal with each other, one or both parties entertain a strong objection to the intervention of any outside mediator, or to the submission of differences to an arbitrator. Thus the engineering employers in 1897 were opposed to any outside intervention, though ready to negotiate with the delegates chosen by the men. On the other hand, the cotton operatives have more than once opposed the proposal of the employers to refer the rate of wages to arbitration, and throughout the great miners’ dispute of 1893 the opposition to arbitration came from the men. Naturally, the party whose organization is the stronger is usually the less inclined to admit outside intervention. But there have also been cases in which employers, who refused to deal directly with trade union officials, have been willing to negotiate with a mediator who was well known to be in communication with these officials, e.g. in the case of the Railway Settlement of 1907.

Apart, however, from the disinclination of one or both parties to allow of any outside intervention, we have to consider how far the nature of the questions in dispute may in any particular case put limits to the applicability of conciliation or arbitration as a method of settlement. Since conciliation is only a general term for the action of a third party in overcoming the obstacles to the conclusion of an agreement by the parties themselves, there is no class of questions which admit of settlement by direct negotiation which may not equally be settled by this method, provided of course that there is an adequate supply of sufficiently skilful mediators. As regards arbitration the case is somewhat different, seeing that in this case the parties agree to be bound by the award of a third party. For the success 335 of arbitration, therefore, it is important that the general principles which should govern the settlement of the particular question at issue should be admitted by both sides.

Thus in the manufactured iron trade in the north of England, it has throughout been understood that wages should depend on the prices realized, and the only question which an arbitrator has usually had to decide has been how far the state of prices at the time warranted a particular change of wage. On the other hand, there are many questions on which disputes arise (e.g. the employment of non-union labour, the restriction of piece-work, &c.) on which there is frequently no common agreement as to principles, and an arbitrator may be at a loss to know what considerations he is to take into account in determining his award. Generally speaking, employers are averse from submitting to a third party questions involving discipline and the management of their business, while in some trades workmen have shown themselves opposed to allowing an arbitrator to reduce wages beyond a certain point which they wish to regard as a guaranteed “minimum.”

Another objection on the part of some employers and workmen to unrestricted arbitration is its alleged tendency to multiply disputes by providing an easy way of solving them without recourse to strikes or lock-outs, and so diminishing the sense of responsibility in the party advancing the claims. It is also sometimes contended that arbitrators, not being governed in their decisions by a definite code of principles, may tend to “split the difference,” so as to satisfy both sides even when the demands on one side or the other are wholly unwarranted. This, it is said, encourages the formulation of demands purposely put high in order to admit of being cut down by an arbitrator.

One of the chief practical difficulties in the way of the successful working of permanent boards of conciliation, consisting of equal numbers of employers and employed, with an umpire in case of deadlock, is the difficulty of inducing business men whose time is fully occupied to devote the necessary time to the work of the boards, especially when either side has it in its power to compel recourse to the umpire, and so render the work of the conciliation board fruitless. In spite of all these difficulties the practice of arranging differences by conciliation and arbitration is undoubtedly spreading, and it is to be remembered that even in cases in which theoretically a basis for arbitration can scarcely be said to exist, recourse to that method may often serve a useful purpose in putting an end to a deadlock of which both parties are tired, though neither cares to own itself beaten.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)