INDUSTRIAL ABRITRATION IN AUSTRALIA
| Date | 01 March 1945 |
| Published date | 01 March 1945 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1945.tb02888.x |
INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION
IN
AUSTRALIA
63
UNIO, on the Executive Committee of the Refugees Committee, and on
the EAC. Immunities under Part I1 are further granted to a small
number of the highest officers of the organisations, viz. the Director-
General and the Deputy Directors-General of UNRRA, the Secretary
General and Deputy Secretary-General
of
UNIO,
the Director and
Vice-Director of the Refugees Committee, and the Secretary-General
and the Secretaries of the EAC. The number
of
persons falling under
this category is restricted in the case of UNRRA to eight,
in
the case
of EAC to
six,
and in the cases
of
UNIO and the Refugees Committee
to two at any one time.
The “other officers and servants” of the organisations are by the
Orders divided into two classes. The higher officers: the Assistant
Deputy Directors-General, Directors, Heads
of
Sections, Principal
Officers, Administrative Officers of UNRRA, the Directors of Divisions
of UNIO, and the Secretary and the Treasurer of the Refugees Commit-
tee, enjoy the privileges and immunities to the full extent of Part
I11
of the Schedule
((I)
immunities from suit and legal process in respect
of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance
of official duties and,
(2)
exemption from income tax in respect of
emoluments received as an officer or servant of the organisation). The
immunities and privileges of lower officers are restricted to the
exemption from income tax in respect of official salaries.
According
to
the provisions of the Act the Orders contain special
provisions regarding British subjects, who receive less favourable
treatment.
EGON
SCHWELB
INDUSTRIAL ABRITRATION IN
AUSTRALIA
HE
Australian industrial and arbitration system is the outcome
of
circumstances and conditions which were peculiar to
Australia,
a
country roughly in size equal to that of the
United States of America and peopled by only seven millions. Un-
trammelled by the traditions of the past, her industrial organizations
in their infancy, she seized the opportunity of fashioning an industrial
system which was suitable not only to her pioneering background and
natural resources, but was based on laws which had a strong democratic
flavour. The key-stone of this system is conciliation, failing which, arbit-
tration.
To
adopt such
a
principle for the regulation
of
industry may
be regarded as providing an interesting field for the testing of advanced
and progressive legislation. With the giant strides that this century
has witnessed in industry, Australia regards her essay into the
rather
uncharted legislative sea of industry as being successful. That the
machinery of the arbitration system groans, and, in some cases,
breaks down, must be admitted, but woe betide any Government
T
To continue reading
Request your trial