THE WORK OF INDUSTRIAL COURTS OF INQUIRY: A STUDY OF EXISTING PROVISIONS AND PAST PRACTICES
| Author | B. A. Clifford,W. E. J. McCarthy |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1966.tb00918.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1966 |
| Date | 01 March 1966 |
THE WORK
OF
INDUSTRIAL COURTS
OF
INQUIRY
A
STUDY
OF
EXISTING PROVISIONS
AND
PAST
PRACTICES
W.
E.
J.
MCCARTHY*
AND
B. A. CLIFFORD**
THE
establishment of
a
Royal Commission on Trade Unions and
Employers’ Associations has given focus and relevance to the growing
debate on the adequacy of British industrial relations institutions. This
ai
ticle aims to contribute to this debate by analysing and evaluating the
work of one important institution
-
the Industrial Court
of
Inquiry,
established under the Industrial Courts Act of 191g.l It
is
based on a study
of
the published reports from the passage of the Act until September 1965.~
This material has been supplemented, where necessary, by discussions with
Ministry of Labour
official^.^
We first consider the intentions and objectives of those responsible for
the Act, and then discuss the composition of courts and their fields of
inquiry. Subsequent sections deal with the kinds
of
recommendations
advanced by courts.
In
conclusion we consider how far courts have made
a significant contribution to the resolution of industrial disputes, and
whether their work could be extended or improved.
I.
INTENTIONS
AND
OBJECTIVES
In
1916, after two years of war, industrial unrest in Britain assumed
serious proportions. For the most part action was taken by organized
workers in defiance of their full-time union officials, who were restricted
by the legal prohibition on strikes and the commitment of most unions to
support the war. Perturbed by these developments the Government
established the ‘Whitley Committee’ to suggest ways of securing a ‘perman-
ent improvement in the relations between employers and ~orkmen’.~ The
detailed recommendations of the committee
-
including the establishment
of Joint Industrial Councils, additional minimum wage machinery, and
a
permanent court
of
arbitration
-
do not concern us here; what is important
is that one of their proposals was that the Minister of Labour should be
authorized to hold ‘a full inquiry’ into outstanding industrial disputes.
*
Staff Tutor in Industrial Relations, Oxford Cniversity Extra-Mural Delegacy
**
Assistant Staff Tutor in Industrial Relations, Oxford University Extra-Mural Delegacy
1
9 and
10
Geo
V.
c.69
2
With the exception of war-time disputes all court of inquiry reports have been published by
H.M.S.O.
3
We wish to thank officials of the Ministry, who gave freely of their time and supplemented our
knowledge in many ways.
It
must be emphasized that they are in
no
way responsible
for
any
conclusions we have drawn.
4
Committee on the Relations Between Employers and the Employed, (1916-19), Cd 8606,
Cd
9001, Cd
9002
and Cd 9153
39
40
BRITISH JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
The intention of the report was to assist the resolution of difficult and
important disputes, where existing methods of conciliation had failed and
the parties were not prepared to accept arbitration, by mobilizing the
influence of informed public opinion. Before assuming that nothing more
could be done, the Committee argued, there might be a case for ‘the
immediate publication, for the information of those affected by the dispute
and of the public generally, of an independent authoritative account of the
matters in differen~e’.~
In introducing the second reading of the bill the Minister of Labour went
further and stressed the beneficial role which public opinion might now
be expected to play in the resolution of industrial conflict. Everybody (he
said) felt the need for some method
.
.
.
which would enlighten the whole
of
the public upon the issues
at
stake.
Everybody,
I
think, has come
to
recognize that the public is the
final
arbiter
in
these industrial disputes, and everybody likewise recognizes that in these
matters the public
is
eminently
fair
and just.6
He therefore proposed to establish courts ‘which shall have the power
of compelling people to attend to give an account of their contentions in
the dispute’ and to produce the necessary documents.
But the element of compulsion was opposed by the Labour Party on
behalf of the trade unions.
J.
R.
Clynes maintained that these parts
of
the
bill would be resented in industry, and concluded
The law will succeed just in the degree that
it
can retain respect for
it
amongst the masses of wage earners, and not because
it
possesses certain
terrors.
Eventually the clauses referring to compulsory attendance were
so
amended at the committee stage that they were dropped altogether. In
practice the rules
of
procedure invariably adopted merely stipulated that
Any person may, by
notice
in
writing.
. .
be requested
to
attend
as
a
witness
and give evidence before the Court, or
to
attend and produce
any
documents
relevant
to
the subject
matter
of
the inquiry,
or
to
furnish in writing
or
otherwise
as
the Court may direct, such particulars in relation
to
the subject
matter of the Inquiry
as
the Court may require.8
Courts have the right to require witnesses to give evidence on oath.
They can call in one or more outside ‘assessors’ to assist them, and dissident
members may submit a minority report. The Minister must place reports
before both Houses of Parliament. Information given to the court in regard
to any individual trade union or employer may not be made public without
their consent.
6
op.
cit.,
4th
Report
6
H.
of
C.
Debates,
Hansard,
6
November
1919,
Col.
1715
7
op.
cit.,
col.
1722
8
I.
G.
Sharp,
Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration in Great Britain,
1950,
p.
361
To continue reading
Request your trial