@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Arts, Faculty of"@en, "Sociology, Department of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Currie, Ian Douglas"@en ; dcterms:issued "2011-12-07T22:19:27Z"@en, "1961"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Arts - MA"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """Conciliation Boards, upon the structure and operation of which this study focuses, are a part of the legal machinery which has been developed since 1937 by British Columbia's legislators as a means of attempting to solve disputes which arise between labour and management personnel with reference to the signing of new collective agreements between these two parties before these parties attempt to solve such disputes by employing the technique of a strike and/or a lockout. The purpose of the Conciliation Board is, thus, to attempt to persuade labour and management personnel to achieve a settlement without employing the technique of the strike or the lockout. Casual observation of two factors—the widely-publicized industrial unrest in British Columbia of recent years, manifested principally in the form of strikes and lockouts, and newspaper articles in which opinions critical of the functioning of Conciliation Boards were expressed—prompted the author to embark upon the present research, the purpose of which was twofold: firstly, and most importantly, to attempt to determine, by employing sociological perspectives, whether or not—regarding the Conciliation Board as a part of the means, or machinery, devised to accomplish the specific end of settling a collective-agreement dispute before the parties resort to the strike or the lockout—any characteristics of the structure or operation of this machinery are inefficient in that they in effect work against the accomplishment of its avowed purpose; and, secondly, to attempt to discover the principal causal factors involved in the process and outcome of the interaction of Conciliation Board personnel when a Conciliation Board is constituted for the purpose of attempting to achieve agreement between the two disputing parties. Extensive exploratory interviewing with experienced Conciliation Board personnel produced a body of data from which, by dint of considerable reflection along sociologically-oriented lines, forty-three hypotheses were developed about four fundamental themes. These hypotheses were subsequently synthesized into a more unified analytic conception by reclassifying them in terms of three categories: External Factors, Internal Factors, and Other-role Factors. The hypotheses were tested by means of an extensive and detailed questionnaire, and the rationale behind the selection of this particular testing-technique is discussed in Chapter III, as is the nature of the sample, and the means by which the sample was selected. The testing of each hypothesis is then described in detail, the results of the tests are set forth, and some of the implications of these results are considered. In Chapter IV, the results of the tests of the hypotheses are examined in the light of the twofold purpose of the thesis (outlined above): the findings of the tests are summarized, the conclusions to which they give rise are recapitulated briefly, and any recommendations which seem indicated are put forward. These recommendations are summarized in a final section, and any general trends of interest suggested by a panoramic consideration of all of the data are described and their significance discussed. These general trends are summarized briefly below. The first is that accommodative and normative conciliation (two ways in which, it was hypothesized, the Conciliation Board chairman may conceive his role*) are relatively distinct in that they are not often used in sequence, and that, of the two, accommodative conciliation is overwhelmingly preferred under all circumstances. A second general observation is that public opinion is not a factor which exercises any important influence upon the operation of Conciliation Boards. Third, employer nominees seem more closely tied to the wishes of their parties as a result of a combination of two factors: their perception of employers as having a greater economic vulnerability to a markedly unfavourable report, and the effect of the "secondary" type of relationship which employers enjoy with their principals. Fourth, an accumulation of evidence makes it apparent that chairmen are somewhat more favourably inclined toward employer nominees as a result of a combination of several factors: firstly, a sympathy based upon social-class and occupational similarities, with an attendant identification of economic and political values; secondly, a belief in the greater economic seriousness, for an employer, of a particularly unfavourable award, and, thirdly, the tendency, alleged by union nominees, of the Social Credit government to appoint chairmen who tend to be more favourably inclined toward employers. In the author's opinion, these factors (that is, those mentioned in the fourth generalization) are the principal causes of a fifth general phenomenon: a generalized dissatisfaction, on the part of union nominees (and, presumably, unions), with the way in which the Boards operate. In response to the information brought to light by the data gathered in the present study, eight recommendations have been made which, it is hoped, would alter the present conciliation machinery in such a way as to render it more satisfactory to those whom it serves; the first seven of these recommendations appear on pages 222-223, and the eighth on pages 226-227."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/39521?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note "B R I T I S H .COLUMBIA INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATORS: A STUDY I N ROLE PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE, AND CONFLICT b y IAN DOUGLAS CURRIE B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1958 A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PA R T I A L FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OP MASTER OF ARTS i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f A n t h r o p o l o g y a n d S o c i o l o g y We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA J a n u a r y , 1961 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree th a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood tha t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of Anthropology and Sociology The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 6% Canada. Date January 15th. 1961. ABSTRACT C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , u p o n t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d o p e r a t i o n o f w h i c h t h i s s t u d y f o c u s e s , a r e a p a r t o f t h e l e g a l m a c h i n e r y w h i c h h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d s i n c e 1937 b y B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s l e g i s l a t o r s a s a means o f a t t e m p t i n g t o s o l v e d i s p u t e s w h i c h a r i s e b e t w e e n l a b o u r a n d management p e r s o n n e l w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s i g n i n g o f new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e s e two p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e s e p a r t i e s a t t e m p t t o s o l v e s u c h d i s p u t e s b y e m p l o y i n g t h e t e c h n i q u e o f a s t r i k e a n d / o r a l o c k o u t . The p u r p o s e o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i s , t h u s , t o a t t e m p t t o p e r s u a d e l a b o u r a n d management p e r s o n n e l t o a c h i e v e a s e t t l e m e n t w i t h o u t e m p l o y i n g t h e t e c h n i q u e o f t h e s t r i k e o r t h e l o c k o u t . C a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n o f two f a c t o r s — t h e w i d e l y -p u b l i c i z e d i n d u s t r i a l u n r e s t i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a o f r e c e n t y e a r s , m a n i f e s t e d p r i n c i p a l l y i n t h e f o r m o f s t r i k e s a n d l o c k o u t s , a n d n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s i n w h i c h o p i n i o n s c r i t i c a l o f t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s were e x p r e s s e d — p r o m p t e d t h e a u t h o r t o embark u p o n t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , t h e p u r p o s e o f w h i c h was t w o f o l d : f i r s t l y , a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , t o a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e , b y e m p l o y i n g s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s , w h e t h e r o r n o t — r e g a r d i n g t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d a s a p a r t o f t h e means, o r m a c h i n e r y , d e v i s e d t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e s p e c i f i c e n d o f s e t t l i n g a c o l l e c t i v e - a g r e e m e n t d i s p u t e b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s r e s o r t t o t h e s t r i k e o r t h e l o c k o u t — a n y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o r o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s m a c h i n e r y a r e i n e f f i c i e n t i n t h a t t h e y i n e f f e c t work a g a i n s t t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f i t s avowed p u r p o s e ; and, s e c o n d l y , t o a t t e m p t t o d i s c o v e r t h e p r i n c i p a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o c e s s a n d outcome o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l when a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i s c o n s t i t u t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a t t e m p t i n g t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . E x t e n s i v e e x p l o r a t o r y i n t e r v i e w i n g w i t h e x p e r i e n c e d C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l p r o d u c e d a b o d y o f d a t a f r o m w h i c h , b y d i n t o f c o n s i d e r a b l e r e f l e c t i o n a l o n g s o c i o l o g i c a l l y -o r i e n t e d l i n e s , f o r t y - t h r e e h y p o t h e s e s were d e v e l o p e d a b o u t f o u r f u n d a m e n t a l t h e m e s . T h e s e h y p o t h e s e s were s u b s e q u e n t l y s y n t h e s i z e d i n t o a more u n i f i e d a n a l y t i c c o n c e p t i o n b y r e c l a s s i f y i n g t hem i n t e r m s o f t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s , I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s , a n d O t h e r - r o l e F a c t o r s . The h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d b y means o f a n e x t e n s i v e a n d d e t a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a n d t h e r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t e s t i n g - t e c h n i q u e i s d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r I I I , a s i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s a m p l e , a n d t h e means b y w h i c h t h e s a m ple was s e l e c t e d . The t e s t i n g o f e a c h h y p o -t h e s i s i s t h e n d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t e s t s a r e s e t f o r t h , a n d some o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d . I n C h a p t e r I V , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t e s t s o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s a r e e x a m i n e d i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e t w o f o l d p u r p o s e o f t h e t h e s i s ( o u t l i n e d a h o v e ) : t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t e s t s a r e s u m m a r i z e d , t h e c o n c l u s i o n s t o w h i c h t h e y g i v e r i s e a r e r e c a p i t u l a t e d b r i e f l y , a n d a n y r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w h i c h seem i n d i c a t e d a r e p u t f o r w a r d . T h e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e s u m m a r i z e d i n a f i n a l s e c t i o n , a n d a n y g e n e r a l t r e n d s o f i n t e r e s t s u g g e s t e d b y a p a n o r a m i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l o f t h e d a t a a r e d e s c r i b e d a n d t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e d i s c u s s e d . T h e s e g e n e r a l t r e n d s a r e s u m m a r i z e d b r i e f l y b e l o w . The f i r s t i s t h a t a c c o m m o d a t i v e a n d n o r m a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n (two ways i n w h i c h , i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d , t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m a n may c o n c e i v e h i s r o l e * ) a r e r e l a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t i n t h a t t h e y a r e n o t o f t e n u s e d i n s e q u e n c e , a n d t h a t , o f t h e two, a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n i s o v e r w h e l m i n g l y p r e f e r r e d u n d e r a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A s e c o n d g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s n o t a f a c t o r w h i c h e x e r c i s e s a n y i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e u p o n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . T h i r d , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s seem more c l o s e l y t i e d t o t h e w i s h e s o f t h e i r p a r t i e s a s a r e s u l t o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f two f a c t o r s : t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f e m p l o y e r s a s h a v i n g a g r e a t e r e c o n o m i c v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o a m a r k e d l y u n f a v o u r a b l e r e p o r t , a n d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e \" s e c o n d a r y \" t y p e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h e m p l o y e r s e n j o y w i t h t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . F o u r t h , a n a c c u m u l a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e makes i t a p p a r e n t t h a t c h a i r m e n a r e somewhat more f a v o u r a b l y i n c l i n e d t o w a r d e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a s a r e s u l t o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s e v e r a l f a c t o r s : f i r s t l y , a s y m p a t h y b a s e d u p o n s o c i a l -c l a s s a n d o c c u p a t i o n a l s i m i l a r i t i e s , w i t h a n a t t e n d a n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f e c o n o m i c a n d p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s ; s e c o n d l y , a b e l i e f i n t h e g r e a t e r e c o n o m i c s e r i o u s n e s s , f o r a n e m p l o y e r , o f a p a r t i c u l a r l y u n f a v o u r a b l e a w ard, a n d , t h i r d l y , t h e t e n d e n c y , a l l e g e d b y u n i o n n o m i n e e s , o f t h e S o c i a l C r e d i t g o v e r n m e n t t o a p p o i n t c h a i r m e n who t e n d t o be more f a v o u r a b l y i n c l i n e d t o w a r d e m p l o y e r s . I n t h e a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n , t h e s e f a c t o r s ( t h a t i s , t h o s e m e n t i o n e d i n t h e f o u r t h g e n e r a l i -z a t i o n ) a r e t h e p r i n c i p a l c a u s e s o f a f i f t h g e n e r a l phenomenon: a g e n e r a l i z e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , o n t h e p a r t o f u n i o n n o m i n e e s ( a n d , p r e s u m a b l y , u n i o n s ) , w i t h t h e way i n w h i c h t h e B o a r d s o p e r a t e . I n r e s p o n s e t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n b r o u g h t t o l i g h t * See p a g e 18 f o r a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e s e two ways b y t h e d a t a g a t h e r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , e i g h t r e c o m -m e n d a t i o n s h a v e b e e n made w h i c h , i t i s h o p e d , w o u l d a l t e r t h e p r e s e n t c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y i n s u c h a way a s t o r e n d e r i t more s a t i s f a c t o r y t o t h o s e whom i t s e r v e s ; t h e , f i r s t s e v e n o f t h e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a p p e a r o n p a g e s 2 2 2 -2 2 3 , a n d t h e e i g h t h on p a g e s 226 - 2 2 7 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The r e s e a r c h d e s c r i h e d i n t h e p a g e s t o f o l l o w c o u l d n e v e r h a v e a t t a i n e d i t s p r e s e n t s t a t e were i t n o t f o r t h e a i d a n d i n t e r e s t o f c e r t a i n p e r s o n s t o whom t h e a u t h o r w i s h e s t o p a y t r i b u t e h e r e . D r . E . A. H. E o b s o n , u n d e r whose d i r e c t i o n t h i s t h e s i s was w r i t t e n , l a v i s h e d , i n t r u t h , a v e r i t a b l e w e a l t h o f i n s i g h t a n d s u g g e s t i o n u p o n i t , a s d i d D r . S. M. J a m i e s o n , whose a c u t e a n d s o p h i s t i c a t e d p e r c e p t i o n s p r o v i d e d , i n l a r g e m e a s u r e , t h e i n i t i a l c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k o f t h e t h e s i s , a n d , s u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e germ o f many h y p o t h e s e s w h i c h were u l t i m a t e l y t e s t e d . To t h e s e two men, a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y t o D r . R o b s o n , whose i n v e s t m e n t o f t i m e a n d t o i l f a r o u t -s t r i p p e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f h i s f o r m a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o r e n d e r a d e q u a t e a p p r e c i a t i o n w i t h i n t h e s t i l t e d c o n f i n e s o f a f o r m a l a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t . To D a v i d Chapman o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f M a c h i n i s t s , a n d Mr. W. H. Morrow, b o t h o f whom, w i t h p e r f e c t aplomb a n d g r e a t g o o d c h e e r , s p e n t many g r u e l i n g h o u r s i n my p r e s e n c e , I w o u l d l i k e t o o f f e r t h a n k s , f o r t h e i r a i d p r o v e d i n d i s p e n s a b l e a t one s t a g e o f t h e t h e s i s , a s d i d t h a t o f J o h n D i e t r i c h , a n d P r o f e s s o r A. W. R. C a r r o t h e r s o f t h e F a c u l t y o f Law. W i t h o u t , o f c o u r s e , t h e s u f f e r a n c e o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l who c o m p l e t e d a r a t h e r f o r m i d a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a l l e l s e w o u l d h a v e b e e n i n v a i n , a n d f o r what I know i t must h a v e c o s t them, I am g r a t e f u l . F i n a l l y , I must t h a n k my w i f e , M a r g a r e t , who p r o v i d e d t h a t p s y c h i c s u p p o r t w h i c h seems s o e s s e n t i a l a c a t a l y s t t o e n d e a v o u r s o f t h i s s o r t . TABLE OE CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I . THE PROBLEM 1 The C o n t e x t , G e n e s i s , a n d I m p o r t a n c e o f t h e P r o b l e m The L e g a l C o n t e x t o f t h e P r o b l e m I I . THE HYPOTHESES 14-The H y p o t h e s i s - G r o u p i n g s a s T h e y E v o l v e d I n i t i a l l y P r e l i m i n a r y A s s u m p t i o n s R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e H y p o t h e s e s i n t o a More U n i f i e d A n a l y t i c C o n c e p t i o n E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s O t h e r - r o l e F a c t o r s I I I , THE TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES 6 5 The T e s t i n g T e c h n i q u e a n d t h e R a t i o n a l e f o r i t s S e l e c t i o n The Sample The T e s t i n g o f E a c h H y p o t h e s i s , t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e T e s t s , a n d t h e I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e R e s u l t s M i s c e l l a n e o u s I n t r o d u c t o r y I n f o r m a t i o n E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s O t h e r - r o l e F a c t o r s I V . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 178 E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s O t h e r - r o l e F a c t o r s Some F i n a l O b s e r v a t i o n s BIBLIOGRAPHY 228 APPENDIX A. The T a b l e s APPENDIX B. The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y was t w o f o l d : f i r s t l y , a n d most i m p o r t a n t l y , t o a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e , b y e m p l o y i n g s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s , w h e t h e r o r n o t c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ( a s t h e y a r e c o n s t i t u t e d a n d f u n c t i o n a t p r e s e n t u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s A c t o f 1954-) j 1 i n e f f e c t work a g a i n s t t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h e i r avowed p u r p o s e ; a n d , s e c o n d l y , t o a t t e m p t t o d i s c o v e r t h e p r i n c i p a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o c e s s a n d outcome o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l when a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i s c o n s t i t u t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a t t e m p t i n g t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . I . The. C o n t e x t , G e n e s i s , a n d I m p o r t a n c e o f t h e P r o b l e m C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , u p o n t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d o p e r a t i o n o f w h i c h t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y f o c u s e s , a r e a p a r t o f 2 t h e l e g a l m a c h i n e r y w h i c h h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d s i n c e 1937 b y 1 L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s A c t , C h a p t e r 17, 1954, S t a t u t e s o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 2 I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n a n d A r b i t r a t i o n A c t , C h a p t e r 3 1 , 1937, S t a t u t e s o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , was t h e f i r s t o f s u c h l e g i s l a t i o n . 1 B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s l e g i s l a t o r s a s a means o f a t t e m p t i n g t o s o l v e d i s p u t e s w h i c h a r i s e b e t w e e n l a b o u r a n d management p e r s o n n e l w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s i g n i n g o f new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e s e two p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e s e p a r t i e s a t t e m p t t o s o l v e s u c h d i s p u t e s b y e m p l o y i n g t h e t e c h n i q u e o f a s t r i k e a n d / o r a l o c k o u t . The p u r p o s e o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i s , t h u s , t o a t t e m p t t o p e r s u a d e l a b o u r a n d management p e r s o n n e l t o a c h i e v e a s e t t l e m e n t w i t h o u t e m p l o y i n g t h e t e c h n i q u e o f t h e s t r i k e o r t h e l o c k o u t . The l e g a l m a c h i n e r y o f c o n c i l i a t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h a t t e m p t i n g t o f i n d a s o l u t i o n t o d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g o v e r t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f t h e t e r m s o f a new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t . The s o l u t i o n p r o p o s e d t o t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s b y t h e p a r t i c u l a r C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e i r d i s p u t e i s n o t b i n d i n g u p o n t h e p a r t i e s i n a n y way; t h a t i s , e a c h p a r t y t o t h e d i s p u t e may a c c e p t o r r e j e c t t h i s s o l u t i o n a s i t w i s h e s , a n d i t c a n be p u t i n t o e f f e c t o n l y i f b o t h o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e d i s p u t e a c c e p t i t . C o n c i l i a t i o n as a l e g a l t e c h n i q u e s h o u l d n o t be c o n f u s e d w i t h a r b i t r a t i o n , a l t h o u g h i t f r e q u e n t l y i s ; a r b i t r a t i o n i s a l e g a l t e c h n i q u e w h i c h i s t h e u l t i m a t e means o f s e t t l i n g d i s p u t e s o r g r i e v a n c e s 3 C o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t s a r e a g r e e m e n t s i n w r i t i n g b e t w e e n an e m p l o y e r o r an employers': o r g a n i z a t i o n a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e e m p l o y e r a n d a t r a d e - u n i o n , a n d s p e c i f y r a t e s o f p a y , h o u r s o f work, an d o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s o f employment. T h e i r p e r i o d o f t e n u r e i s g e n e r a l l y one y e a r , a n d , a f t e r t h e o l d c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t h a s e x p i r e d , a new one must be n e g o t i a t e d . which a r i s e between labour and management while a c o l l e c t i v e 4 agreement between them i s i n force; no stoppage of work may-be i n s t i t u t e d by e i t h e r party i n connection with such a dispute, and the d e c i s i o n reached by the a r b i t r a t i n g authority i s l e g a l l y binding upon both of the p a r t i e s . The l e g i s l a t i o n governing c o n c i l i a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia has been amended some s i x times since the I n d u s t r i a l C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Act of 1937 was put into e f f e c t , but i t has remained unchanged from the time that the l e g i -s l a t i o n at present i n f o r c e — t h e Labour Relations Act of 1954—came int o e f f e c t on June 16th, 1954. For the period of 1955-1959 i n c l u s i v e (the only period f o r which s t a t i s t i c s are a v a i l a b l e which have exclusive reference to the functioning of the c o n c i l i a t i o n machinery under the Labour Relations Act of 1954), 75 , or 11.4% 5 of the 659 labour 4 Such disputes w i l l be focused upon the l e g a l i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n of the provisions of the e x i s t i n g contract, one party claiming that, with respect to the matters i n dispute, these provisions are being adequately f u l f i l l e d , and the other party claiming that they are not. 5 To put i t i n f u l l e r perspective, t h i s f i g u r e represents 4-.5% of the t o t a l of 1,682 disputes a r i s i n g from the negotiation of a new c o l l e c t i v e agreement which occurred during the period of 1955-1959 i n c l u s i v e . ( I t i s assumed that a \"dispute\" e x i s t s when the two p a r t i e s are unable, as a r e s u l t of t h e i r own p r i v a t e negotiations, to agree upon a new c o l l e c t i v e agreement, and c a l l upon a C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r or a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board to a i d them i n t h e i r attempt to achieve a settlement.) ( A l l of these s t a t i s t i c s were derived from the reports of the Labour Relations Branch of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Labour, as contained i n . The Annual Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Labour f o r the years 1955-1959 i n c l u s i v e . ) disputes referred to Conciliation Boards during that time have ended i n strikes or lockouts in which a total of 1,872,412 man-days were lost to the economy of the province, and the Vancouver Public Library's f i l e of newspaper clippings indicates that at least seventeen newspaper articles 6 7 have appeared (seven i n The Province, and ten i n The Sun') i n which persons connected either with labour or with management have expressed opinions c r i t i c a l of the functioning of Conciliation Boards. Casual observation of these two factors—the widely-publicized industrial unrest i n B r i t i s h Columbia of recent years, manifested principally i n the form of strikes and lockouts (of which a precise s t a t i s t i c a l record i s given above), and newspaper arti c l e s in which opinions c r i t i c a l of the functioning of Conciliation Boards were expressed— prompted the author to consider, and, subsequently, to embark upon research the objectives of which have already been delineated: f i r s t l y , and most importantly, to attempt to determine, by employing sociological perspectives, whether or not certain aspects of the structure and operation of 6 The Province [Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada], November 21, 1956; March 24, 1956; January 19, 1957; March 25, 1958; February 10, 1959; July 7, 1959, and March 31, I960. 7 The Sun [Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada], September 27, 1957; October 17, 1957; December 16, 1958; March 26, 1958; two articles i n the issue of June 25, 1958; an undated clipping, probably from the summer of 1958; February 4, 1959; February 10, 1959; and March 30, I960. C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a i n e f f e c t work a g a i n s t t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h e i r avowed p u r p o s e — t h e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f t h e two p a r t i e s a n d h e n c e t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f a s t r i k e a n d / o r l o c k o u t ; a n d , s e c o n d l y , t o a t t e m p t t o d i s -c o v e r t h e p r i n c i p a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o c e s s and outcome o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l when a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i s c o n s t i t u t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a t t e m p t i n g t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . T h u s , t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s , o n a g e n e r a l a n d i n c l u s i v e l e v e l o f e x p l a n a t i o n , an a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c a u s a l f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e o p e r a t i o n a n d outcome o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , and on a more s p e c i f i c a n d u t i l i t a r i a n l e v e l o f e x p l a n a t i o n , i s an e n d e a v o u r t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r o r n o t — r e g a r d i n g t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d a s a p a r t o f t h e means, o r m a c h i n e r y , d e v i s e d t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e s p e c i f i c e n d o f s e t t l i n g a d i s p u t e a r i s i n g o v e r t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f a new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s r e s o r t t o t h e s t r i k e o r t h e l o c k o u t — a n y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o r o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s m a c h i n e r y a r e i n e f f i c i e n t i n t h a t t h e y i n e f f e c t w ork a g a i n s t t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f i t s avowed p u r p o s e . I n t h u s a t t e m p t i n g t o d i s c o v e r w h e t h e r o r n o t f l a w s e x i s t i n t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d as a m e c h a n i s m f o r p r e v e n t i n g s t r i k e s a n d l o c k o u t s , t h i s s t u d y 6 h a s no q u a r r e l w i t h t h o s e who may p o i n t o u t what t h e y c o n s i d e r t o he t h e p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f s t r i k e s a n d l o c k o u t s e i t h e r i n t h e a m e l i o r a t i o n o f i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s o r i n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f r e a s o n a b l y s a t i s f a c t o r y o n e s . The r a t i o n a l e o f t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s as f o l l o w s : i t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h e l a w r e g a r d s s t r i k e s a n d l o c k o u t s a s i n j u r i o u s t o t h e economy o f t h e p r o v i n c e a n d t h e r e f o r e t o be a v o i d e d i f i t i s p o s s i b l e t o s e c u r e , t o t h i s e n d , t h e v o l u n t a r y c o o p e r a t i o n o f t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s ; t h e l e g a l m a c h i n e r y d e s i g n e d t o h a n d l e d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t s h a s b e e n , p r e s u m a b l y , so c o n s t r u c t e d a s t o p r o v i d e c o n d i t i o n s r e g a r d e d b y i t s a r c h i t e c t s a s m a x i m a l l y f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e e n d o f v o l u n t a r y a g r e e m e n t , a n d , h e n c e , a v o i d a n c e o f s t r i k e s a n d l o c k o u t s ; t h i s r e s e a r c h d o e s n o t c o n c e r n i t s e l f w i t h t h e v a l i d i t y o r i n v a l i d i t y o f t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e u n d e s i r a b l e a n d i n j u r i o u s n a t u r e o f s t r i k e s a n d l o c k o u t s , b u t , f o c u s i n g s o l e l y u p o n t h e l e g a l m e c h a n i s m o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d as a means t o t h e s p e c i f i c e n d o f p r e v e n t i n g c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t -n e g o t i a t i o n d i s p u t e s f r o m r e s u l t i n g i n s t r i k e s o r l o c k o u t s , a t t e m p t s t o t e s t , t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r means f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e n d . I I . The L e g a l C o n t e x t o f t h e P r o b l e m I n a t t e m p t i n g t o a c c o m p l i s h i t s t w o f o l d p u r p o s e , t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n s i t s e l f , i n c o n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l , w i t h c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d , and, a s t h i s s t r u c t u r e a n d o p e r a t i o n a r e b r o a d l y d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e 1954 L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s A c t , some k n o w l e d g e o f t h i s b o d y o f l a w , a s i t p e r t a i n s t o C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , i s o b v i o u s l y e s s e n t i a l t o an u n d e r -s t a n d i n g o f t h e c o n c e r n s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . W i t h i n t h r e e months a n d n o t l e s s t h a n two months b e f o r e t h e d a t e o f e x p i r y o f an e x i s t i n g c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t , e i t h e r o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s a g r e e m e n t ( t h a t i s , e i t h e r l a b o u r o r management) may b y n o t i c e r e q u i r e t h e o t h e r p a r t y t o b e g i n c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . W i t h i n f i v e d a y s a f t e r t h e r e c e i p t o f t h i s n o t i c e , t h e t r a d e - u n i o n a n d e m p l o y e r , o r e m p l o y e r s ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , a s t h e c a s e may b e , must b e g i n t o b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y a n d a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e a m u t u a l l y -a c c e p t a b l e r e n e w a l o r r e v i s i o n o f t h e o l d a g r e e m e n t , o r e l s e a new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t . I f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g h a s b e e n c o n t i n u e d u n s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r a t l e a s t t e n d a y s , e i t h e r p a r t y may r e q u e s t t h a t t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r a p p o i n t a C o n c i l i a t i o n 8 The m a t e r i a l c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n was t a k e n f r o m t h e L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s A c t , C h a p t e r 17, 1954, p a g e s 9-19» S t a t u t e s o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 8 O f f i c e r t o c o n f e r w i t h t h e p a r t i e s t o a s s i s t them t o a c h i e v e a c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t . W i t h i n t e n d a y s o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r ' s a p p o i n t m e n t ( o r a l o n g e r p e r i o d , s h o u l d t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e u p o n i t ) , he must make a r e p o r t t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r , d e s c r i b i n g t h o s e m a t t e r s u p o n w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s h a v e a g r e e d ; t h o s e m a t t e r s u p o n w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s h a v e b e e n u n a b l e t o a g r e e , a n d h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a s t o t h e a d v i s a b i l i t y o f q a p p o i n t i n g o r n o t a p p o i n t i n g a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d , J w h i c h w o u l d u n d e r t a k e f u r t h e r a t t e m p t s t o b r i n g a b o u t a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s o v e r a new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t . S h o u l d t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r be u n a b l e t o b r i n g a b o u t a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two p a r t i e s , a n d s h o u l d he c o n s i d e r i t i n a d v i s a b l e t o a p p o i n t a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d , he may make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e m a t t e r s i n d i s p u t e . T h e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s may t h e n be s e n t t o t h e p a r t i e s , i n w h i c h c a s e t h e y h a v e t h e same f o r c e a n d e f f e c t ( s u b s e q u e n t l y d e s c r i b e d ) a s i f t h e y h a d b e e n made i n t h e r e p o r t o f a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . 9 F o r t h e p e r i o d o f 1955-1959 i n c l u s i v e , C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r s h a v e c o n s i d e r e d i t i n a d v i s a b l e t o a p p o i n t a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i n 155, o r 1 8 . 8 % o f t h e 812 d i s p u t e s w h i c h came u n d e r t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n , b u t i n w h i c h t h e y were u n a b l e t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t . ( T h e s e s t a t i s t i c s were d e r i v e d f r o m t h e r e p o r t s o f t h e L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s B r a n c h o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o u r , a s c o n t a i n e d i n The A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o u r f o r t h e y e a r s 1955-1959 i n c l u s i v e . ) One o f t h e most e x p e r i e n c e d C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r s i n f o r m e d t h e a u t h o r , i n c o n v e r s a t i o n , t h a t t h e r e a s o n f o r t h i s was t h a t , i n t h e s e c a s e s , t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r i n v o l v e d f e l t t h a t h e h a d , t o no a v a i l , done a l l t h a t he f e l t a B o a r d w o u l d be a b l e t o do t o a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t , a n d t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f a B o a r d w o u l d m e r e l y be a f u t i l e d u p l i c a t i o n o f e f f o r t . 9 When a C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r h a s b e e n u n a b l e t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two p a r t i e s o v e r t h e t e r m s o f a new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t , a n d recommends t h a t a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d be a p p o i n t e d t o p u r s u e t h i s t a s k , a n d / o r t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r f e e l s t h a t a B o a r d o u g h t t o be a p p o i n t e d f o r t h i s p u r p o s e , t h e M i n i s t e r may a p p o i n t a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . The M i n i s t e r n o t i f i e s e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s o f t h i s d e c i s i o n , a n d r e q u i r e s e a c h o f them, w i t h i n f i v e d a y s o f r e c e i v i n g t h e n o t i c e , t o n o m i n a t e one p e r s o n t o be a member o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . W i t h i n f i v e d a y s a f t e r t h e d a y on w h i c h t h e s e c o n d o f t h e s e two p e r s o n s i s a p p o i n t e d , t h e y must n o m i n a t e a t h i r d p e r s o n , a c c e p t a b l e t o e a c h , t o be t h e c h a i r m a n o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . S h o u l d t h e two members o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d be u n a b l e t o a g r e e u p o n a m u t u a l l y -a c c e p t a b l e c h a i r m a n , t h e n t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r a p p o i n t s a c h a i r m a n . No p e r s o n may be a member o f a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d who, d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , h a s a n y p e c u n i a r y i n t e r e s t i n t h e m a t t e r s r e f e r r e d t o a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d ; o r who i s a c t i n g o r h a s , w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f s i x months p r e c e d i n g t h e d a t e o f h i s a p p o i n t m e n t , a c t e d i n t h e c a p a c i t y o f s o l i c i t o r , l e g a l a d v i s e r , c o u n s e l , o r p a i d a g e n t o f e i t h e r o f t h e p a r t i e s . E a c h member o f a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i s r e q u i r e d , b e f o r e s e r v i n g on t h e B o a r d , t o t a k e t h e f o l l o w i n g o a t h : I , , do s o l e m n l y s w e a r ( a f f i r m ) t h a t I w i l l f a i t h f u l l y , t r u l y , a n d i m p a r t i a l l y , t o t h e b e s t o f my k n o w l e d g e , s k i l l , a n d a b i l i t y , e x e c u t e a n d p e r f o r m t h e o f f i c e o f a member o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d a p p o i n t e d i n t h e m a t t e r o f t h e b e t w e e n a n d , a n d w i l l n o t , e x c e p t i n t h e d i s c h a r g e o f my d u t i e s , d i s c l o s e t o any p e r s o n a n y o f t h e e v i d e n c e o r o t h e r m a t t e r b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e s a i d C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . So h e l p me God. A C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d h a s t h e power o f summoning b e f o r e i t a n y w i t n e s s e s , a n d o f r e q u i r i n g them t o g i v e e v i d e n c e u n d e r o a t h , a n d t o p r o d u c e s u c h d o c u m e n t s a n d t h i n g s a s t h e B o a r d c o n s i d e r s r e l e v a n t t o a c o m p l e t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r s r e f e r r e d t o i t . I t g i v e s f u l l o p p o r t u n i t y t o a l l p a r t i e s t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e a n d make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , a n d p e r m i t s o p p o s i n g p a r t i e s a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d b y t h e o t h e r p a r t y . I m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f t h e c h a i r m a n , t h e B o a r d b e g i n s i t s e n d e a v o u r t o b r i n g a b o u t a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e m a t t e r s r e f e r r e d t o i t , t h e f i n a l s t e p i n t h i s p r o c e s s b e i n g t h e s u b m i s s i o n t o e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s o f t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e B o a r d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d i s p u t e ; t h e manner i n w h i c h t h i s i s accom-p l i s h e d i s d e s c r i b e d b e l o w . I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n a n d t h e two n o m i n e e s c o m p o s i n g t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d a r e n o t u n a n i m o u s i n t h e i r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , t h e m u t u a l l y a g r e e d - u p o n r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f a m a j o r i t y ( t h a t i s , o f a n y two) o f them c o n s t i t u t e s t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . The d e c i s i o n i s f o r w a r d e d t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r i n t h e f o r m o f a r e p o r t , a n d i f t h e d e c i s i o n was n o t u n a n i m o u s , t h e n a r e p o r t o f t h e f i n d i n g s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e m i n o r i t y member o f t h e B o a r d i s a l s o f o r w a r d e d . The M i n i s t e r t h e n s e n d s c o p i e s o f t h e r e p o r t t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d t o t h e p a r t i e s . The d e c i s i o n o f t h e e m p l o y e r o r t h e e m p l o y e r s , i f more t h a n one e m p l o y e r i s i n v o l v e d , a n d t h e e m p l o y e e s i n t h e u n i t a f f e c t e d a s t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o n o f t h e r e p o r t o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d ( o r , i f i t was f e l t i n a d v i s a b l e t o a p p o i n t a B o a r d , t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r ) must be r e c e i v e d b y t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r w i t h i n e i g h t e e n d a y s o f t h e t i m e t h a t he m a i l e d t h e r e p o r t o f t h e B o a r d t o t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . A t r a d e - u n i o n c a n n o t d e c l a r e o r a u t h o r i z e a s t r i k e o f e m p l o y e e s , a n d no e m p l o y e e c a n s t r i k e , n o r c a n an e m p l o y e r d e c l a r e o r c a u s e a l o c k o u t o f h i s e m p l o y e e s , u n t i l t h e t r a d e - u n i o n a n d t h e e m p l o y e r , o r t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , h a v e b a r g a i n e d c o l l e c t i v e l y a n d f a i l e d t o a c h i e v e a m u t u a l l y -a c c e p t a b l e c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t ; a n d ( i f no B o a r d was c o n s t i t u t e d ) a C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s h a v e b e e n s e n t t o t h e p a r t i e s , o r t h e r e p o r t o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d h a s b e e n s e n t t o t h e p a r t i e s a s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , an d t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o n o f t h e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h i s r e p o r t h a s b e e n s u b m i t t e d t o t h e e m p l o y e r ( o r , where t h e r e i s more t h a n one e m p l o y e r , t o a v o t e o f t h e e m p l o y e r s ) a n d t o a v o t e o f t h e e m p l o y e e s a f f e c t e d . I f t h e v o t e o f b o t h e m p l o y e r s a n d e m p l o y e e s i s i n f a v o u r o f t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r o r t h e r e p o r t o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d , no e m p l o y e r may c a u s e a l o c k o u t , no e m p l o y e e s may s t r i k e , a n d no p e r s o n may d e c l a r e o r a u t h o r i z e a s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t , a n d t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e O f f i c e r o r t h e r e p o r t w i l l c o n s t i t u t e t h e new c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h o s e m a t t e r s u p o n w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s h a d n o t p r e v i o u s l y a g r e e d . I f , h o w e v e r , t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e employe who v o t e v o t e i n f a v o u r o f a s t r i k e , t h e n a s t r i k e may be put- i n t o e f f e c t , p r o v i d e d t h a t i t i s b e g u n d u r i n g t h e t h r e e months i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e d a t e on w h i c h t h e v o t e was t a k e n , a n d p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r h a s b e e n g i v e n w r i t t e n n o t i c e b y t h e t r a d e - u n i o n t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e s a r e g o i n g t o s t r i k e a n d f o r t y - e i g h t h o u r s h a v e e l a p s e d f r o m t h e t i m e t h i s n o t i c e was g i v e n . W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a l o c k o u t u p o n e m p l o y e e s b y t h e i r e m p l o y e r , i f more t h a n one e m p l o y e r i s i n v o l v e d , no l o c k o u t may be e f f e c t e d u n t i l a s e c r e t b a l l o t o f a l l t h e e m p l o y e r s h a s b e e n t a k e n on t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t o l o c k o u t o r n o t , a n d a m a j o r i t y a r e i n f a v o u r o f a l o c k o u t . A s i n t h e c a s e o f t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a s t r i k e b y a t r a d e - u n i o n , so w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a l o c k o u t b y a n e m p l o y e r o r e m p l o y e r s : a n e m p l o y e r may commence a l o c k o u t o f h i s e m p l o y e e s o n l y d u r i n g t h e t h r e e m o nths i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e d a t e on w h i c h t h e v o t e was t a k e n , a n d o n l y p r o v i d e d t h a t he h a s g i v e n t h e t r a d e - u n i o n w r i t t e n n o t i c e t h a t he i s g o i n g t o e f f e c t a l o c k o u t a n d f o r t y - e i g h t h o u r s h a v e e l a p s e d f r o m t h e t i m e t h i s n o t i c e was g i v e n . The above m a t e r i a l c o n s t i t u t e s a n a c c o u n t , s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d f o r o u r p u r p o s e s , o f t h e s e q u e n c e an d s t r u c t u r e o f t h e l e g a l m a c h i n e r y w i t h i n w h i c h t h e m e c h a n i s m o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d o p e r a t e s . CHAPTER I I THE HYPOTHESES A s e r i e s o f r e l a t i v e l y l e n g t h y d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h D r . J a m i e s o n o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E c o n o m i c s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m h i a p r o v i d e d t h e b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n , o r \"raw m a t e r i a l \" f r o m w h i c h , b y d i n t o f c o n s i d e r a b l e r e f l e c t i o n a l o n g s o c i o l o g i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d l i n e s , t h e h y p o t h e s e s w h i c h t h i s s t u d y i s d e s i g n e d t o t e s t were d e r i v e d . D r . J a m i e s o n was c o n s u l t e d b e c a u s e i t was f e l t t h a t , a s he i s a s c h o l a r , a s p e c i a l i s t i n l a b o u r e c o n o m i c s , a c o n c i l i a t o r \" ^ o f c o n s i d e r a b l e e x p e r i e n c e , a n d t h e h o l d e r o f a g r a d u a t e d e g r e e i n S o c i o l o g y , he w o u l d be u n i q u e l y e q u i p p e d t o be s e n s i t i z e d t o p r e c i s e l y t h o s e s o r t s o f phenomena w h i c h w o u l d be o f p a r a m o u n t i n t e r e s t t o a s o c i o l o g y s t u d e n t a t t e m p t i n g a n a n a l y s i s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d . o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . And t h i s p r o v e d , h a p p i l y , most e m p h a t i c a l l y t o be t h e c a s e . S u b s e q u e n t d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h s e v e r a l o t h e r e x p e r i -e n c e d c o n c i l i a t o r s r e s u l t e d i n t h e f u r t h e r r e f i n e m e n t o f t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s . The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y , t o w h i c h r e f e r e n c e h a s a l r e a d y b e e n made i n C h a p t e r I , was t w o f o l d : f i r s t l y , a n d 10 T h a t i s , he h a s s e r v e d on a number o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . 14 most i m p o r t a n t l y , t o a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e , b y e m p l o y i n g s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s , w h e t h e r o r n o t c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a i n e f f e c t w ork a g a i n s t t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h e i r avowed p u r p o s e ; and, s e c o n d l y , t o a t t e m p t t o d i s c o v e r t h e p r i n c i p a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o c e s s a n d outcome o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l when a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i s c o n s t i t u t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a t t e m p t i n g t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . Two g e n e r a l a n d a n t i p o d a l m e t h o d s o f a n a l y s i s were o p e n t o t h e a u t h o r i n h i s a t t e m p t t o s t u d y C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . One p o s s i b i l i t y was t h a t a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f what were f e l t t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a r e a s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n , o r phenomena, c o u l d be s e l e c t e d a n d s t u d i e d i n t e n s i v e l y — a l i m i t e d a r e a c o u l d be e x a m i n e d i n d e p t h ; t h e o t h e r p o s -s i b i l i t y was t h a t a s many a r e a s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n , o r phenomena, a s seemed a t a l l l i k e l y t o p r o v e o f a n y i n t e r e s t o r s i g n i f i c a n c e c o u l d be e x a m i n e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l a n d e x p l o r a t o r y m a n n e r — a b r o a d a r e a c o u l d be e x a m i n e d , b u t r e l a t i v e l y s h a l l o w l y . The t w o f o l d p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y , • o u t l i n e d a b o v e , i n d i c a t e s c l e a r l y t h a t t h e l a t t e r m e t h o d o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n was s e l e c t e d . I t was f e l t t h a t t h e v e r i t a b l e n o n e x i s t e n c e o f e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , c o u p l e d w i t h t h e i m m e d i a t e l y a p p a r e n t i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e i r f u n c t i o n i n i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y , n e c e s s i t a t e d a b r o a d , e x p l o r a t o r y , o r s u r v e y t y p e o f r e s e a r c h , i n o r d e r t h a t a s many a r e a s a s p o s s i b l e w o r t h y o f more i n t e n s i v e a n d d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n be u n c o v e r e d . The u s e o f t h i s a p p r o a c h n e c e s s i t a t e s t h a t t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m h y p o t h e s i s — u s e d i n t h e s t u d y b e c a u s e o f i t s t e r m i n o l o g i c a l c o n v e n i e n c e — b e c o n s i d e r a b l y q u a l i f i e d . The t e r m i s , i t seems r e a s o n a b l y a c c u r a t e t o a s s e r t , when i t i s e m p l o y e d i n a n e m p i r i c a l s t u d y , most f r e q u e n t l y u s e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y \" r i g o r o u s \" manner a n d c o n t e x t : i t i s f r a m e d w i t h g r e a t c a r e a n d p r e c i s i o n , a n d f o r m u l a t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f r e l a t i v e l y e x t e n s i v e e x p l o r a t o r y e v i d e n c e , a n d i t i s n o t u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d l e g i t i m a t e t o u s e t h e d a t a b y means o f w h i c h i t i s t e s t e d , o r d a t a p o s s e s s e d a s a b y - p r o d u c t o f t h i s t e s t i n g , a s t h e b a s i s f o r r a t h e r i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c a n d u n r i g o r o u s s p e c u l a t i o n s . However, a s t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i s r e g a r d e d a s a n e x p l o r a t o r y o n e , t h e p r o p e r c o n c e r n o f w h i c h i s t o t u r n up a n y r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f i n t e r e s t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , w h e t h e r u n e q u i v o c a l l y i n d i c a t e d o r m e r e l y t e n u o u s l y s u g g e s t e d , t h e w o r d h y p o t h e s i s i s t o be u s e d i n r a t h e r a c a v a l i e r f a s h i o n . To s a y t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o r p a t t e r n p o s t u l a t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r i s , on t h e b a s i s o f d e c i d e d l y i n c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e , \" p r o p o s e d , \" o r \" s u g g e s t e d f o r t h e s a k e o f e x p e r i m e n t , \" \" s p e c u l a t e d u p o n , \" o r e v e n \" g u e s s e d a t , \" w o u l d more a c c u r a t e l y c o n v e y t h e s p i r i t o f t h e t e r m h y p o t h e s i s a s i t i s u s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t e n q u i r y , t h a n w o u l d i t s more p r e v a l e n t r i g o r o u s l y e m p i r i c a l f o r m . T h u s t h e r a t h e r s t e r n f o r m a l i s m a n d p r e c i s i o n w i t h w h i c h t h e h y p o -t h e s e s i n t h i s c h a p t e r a r e p r e s e n t e d , w i l l , t h e r e a d e r i s f o r e w a r n e d , he c o n s i d e r a b l y i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e r a t h e r i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c , s p e c u l a t i v e , a n d f l u i d manner i n w h i c h t h e d a t a r e l a t i n g t o them, w h e t h e r c a l l e d i n t o e x i s t e n c e a s a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f t h e t e s t i n g o f s p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s e s , o r e x i s t i n g m e r e l y a s a n u n f o r e s e e n b y - p r o d u c t o f t h e s e t e s t s , a r e d i s c u s s e d , I . The H y p o t h e s i s - G r o u p i n g s a s t h e y E v o l v e d I n i t i a l l y By a p r o c e s s o f r a m i f i c a t i o n a n d a c c r e t i o n , c o n s t e l l a t i o n s o f h y p o t h e s e s a r o s e a b o u t f o u r f u n d a m e n t a l t h e m e s , a n d two f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s e s , q u i t e d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e s e f o u r g r o u p s o f h y p o t h e s e s , were f o r m u l a t e d a n d r e m a i n e d a s s i n g l e a n d s e p a r a t e e n t i t i e s . T h e s e themes an d t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d h y p o t h e s e s a r e s e t o u t b e l o w , a f t e r a b r i e f s t a t e m e n t o f a s s u m p t i o n s p r e l i m i n a r y t o many o f them. P r e l i m i n a r y A s s u m p t i o n s I t i s assumed t h a t t h e f a c t o r s o f s o c i a l b a c k -g r o u n d a n d s i t u a t i o n , v a l u e s , l o y a l t i e s , a n d c o v e r t commitments w i l l e x e r c i s e a m e a s u r a b l e a n d s o m e t i m e s a d e t e r m i n i n g i n f l u e n c e u p o n t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g b e h a v i o u r a n d d e c i s i o n s o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l ( a n d i t w i l l t h e r e f o r e be one o b j e c t o f t h i s s t u d y t o a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s i g n i f i c a n t p r e s s u r e s i n f l u e n c i n g t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d b e h a v i o u r a n d d e c i s i o n s o f p e r s o n s s i t t i n g i n t h e t h r e e c a p a c i t i e s o f c h a i r m a n , u n i o n n o m i n e e , a n d e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e ) ; i t i s f e l t t h a t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f e a c h i s a f u n c t i o n o f how e a c h p e r c e i v e s h i s r o l e and t h o s e o f t h e o t h e r two B o a r d members. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e c e n t r a l theme o f H y p o t h e s i s - g r o u p Two b e l o w i s t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n may c o n c e i v e h i s r o l e i n two d i f f e r e n t ways, as t h a t o f \" c o n c i l i a t o r p e r s e , \" i n w h i c h c a s e he w o u l d a t t e m p t t o e f f e c t a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two n o m i n e e s p r e d o m i n a n t l y b y a c c o m m o d a t i v e 1 1 means ( t h a t i s , he w o u l d a t t e m p t t o g e t t h e l a b o u r a n d management n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t on a n y t e r m s w h i c h a r e a c c e p t a b l e t o b o t h o f them, r e g a r d l e s s o f what t h e c h a i r m a n h i m s e l f t h i n k s a b o u t t h e j u s t i c e o r d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e s e t e r m s ) , o r a s t h a t o f , f o r e x a m p l e , \" w a t c h d o g o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and/or, o f j u s t i c e , \" i n w h i c h c a s e he w o u l d a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s b y n o r m a t i v e means ( t h a t i s , b y a s e t o f s t a n d a r d s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c h a i r m a n , w h i c h he c h o o s e s t o d e f i n e b y some n o r m a t i v e s t a n d a r d w h i c h he h o l d s , s u c h a s \" t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , \" o r \" a j u s t s e t t l e m e n t , \" a n d b y r e f e r e n c e t o w h i c h t h e t e r m s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t a r e j u s t i f i e d ) . 11 F o r t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e - n o r m a t i v e d i c h o t o m y , I am i n d e b t e d t o t h e a r t i c l e \" C o n c e p t s i n L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s , \" b y P r o f e s s o r H. D. Woods, w h i c h a p p e a r e d i n P a t t e r n s o f I n d u s t r i a l D i s p u t e S e t t l e m e n t i n F i v e C a n a d i a n I n d u s t r i e s ( p a g e s 1 - 2 1 ) , e d i t e d b y H. D. Woods, a n d p u b l i s h e d i n 1958 b y The I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s C e n t r e , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t r e a l , Quebec; t h e c o n c e p t i o n was, h o w e v e r , a r r i v e d a t i n d e p e n d e n t l y . 19 H y p o t h e s i s - g r o u p One The common f a c t o r p r o v i d i n g t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s g r o u p i n g o f h y p o t h e s e s was t h a t o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e , o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e s , a n d s o c i a l s t a t u s a f f i l i a t i o n s , o n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l . The c h a i r m a n , i t i s assumed, w h i l e o p e r a t i n g w i t h one o f t h e two t e c h n i q u e s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , c a n b e h a v e i n one o f t h r e e p o s s i b l e ways o n a n y one B o a r d : i n a manner p r e -d o m i n a n t l y p r o - l a b o u r , i n w h i c h c a s e he w i l l t e n d t o f a v o u r t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e l a b o u r n o m inee o v e r t h a t o f t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e ; pro-management ( t h e r e v e r s e ) , o r i m p a r t i a l a n d o b j e c t i v e , f a v o u r i n g them e q u a l l y . H y p o t h e s i s l ( i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i m p a r t i a l a n d o b j e c t i v e b e h a v i o u r o n t h e p a r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n a n d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e n o m i n e e s w i l l be f o u n d most f r e q u e n t l y i n p e r s o n s r e c r u i t e d f r o m t h e a c a d e m i c p r o f e s s i o n . I t i s assumed t h a t t h i s w i l l be so a s a r e s u l t o f t h e t r a i n i n g i n t h e d i s i n t e r e s t e d a s s e s s m e n t o f e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e w h i c h a c a d e m i c i a n s r e c e i v e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f r e s e a r c h , a n d w h i c h c a p a c i t y i t i s f u r t h e r assumed t h e y w i l l , f o r t h i s r e a s o n , p o s s e s s t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n p e r s o n s f r o m a n y o t h e r o c c u p a t i o n o r p r o f e s s i o n s e r v i n g on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . Two o b j e c t i o n s c a n , o f c o u r s e , i m m e d i a t e l y be p u t f o r w a r d t h a t w i l l c a l l i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i d i t y a n d r e l e v a n c e o f t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s . The f i r s t i s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n s o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , w h i l e t h e y w i l l p r o b a b l y i n m o s t c a s e s be b a s e d i n l a r g e m e a s u r e o n t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e , w i l l n o t s p r i n g d i r e c t l y a n d i n e x o r a b l y f r o m t h i s e v i d e n c e , b u t w i l l i n a d d i t i o n i n v o l v e t h e r e n d e r i n g o f v a l u e j u d g e m e n t s — a t a s k w h i c h w o u l d n o t , p r e s u m a b l y , be a i d e d b y t h e a c a d e m i c t r a i n i n g r e f e r r e d t o a b o v e . The s e c o n d i s t h a t a c a d e m i c i a n s a r e i n t e l l e c t u a l s p e c i a l i s t s , a n d , a s s p e c i a l i s t s a r e n o t o r i o u s l y c a p a b l e o f c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z i n g t h e i r k n o w l e d g e , i t i s l e g i t i m a t e t o o b j e c t t h a t c o m p e t e n c e i n a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d o f k n o w l e d g e w o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e x t e n d t o t h e p r o b l e m s c o n f r o n t i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . W i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s e c o n d o f t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s , i t may be r e p l i e d t h a t , t o t h e b e s t o f t h e a u t h o r ' s k n o w l e d g e , t h e a c a d e m i c i a n s a p p o i n t e d a s c h a i r m e n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s a r e s e l e c t e d a t l e a s t i n p a r t b e c a u s e o f t h e i r c o m p e t e n c e i n a n a r e a o f k n o w l e d g e r e g a r d e d a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e p r o b l e m s c o n f r o n t i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , s u c h a s t h e f i e l d s o f e c o n o m i c s o r l a w . So f a r as t h e f i r s t o b j e c t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d , i t seems r e a s o n -a b l e t o s u p p o s e t h a t t h e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n d k n o w l e d g e a b l e a n i n d i v i d u a l i s i n a n a r e a o f c o m p e t e n c e r e g a r d e d as r e l e v a n t t o a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d ' s c o n c e r n s , t h e more a d e q u a t e , p r a c t i c a b l e , r e s p e c t e d , a n d a c c e p t a b l e h i s v a l u e j u d g e m e n t s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h c o n c i l i a t i o n a r e l i k e l y t o be t o t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n i t . H y p o t h e s i s l ( i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t r e t i r e d p e r s o n s who s e r v e o n C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s w i l l t e n d t o h a v e a n a n t i - i n f l a t i o n a r y b i a s t h a t w i l l c a u s e them t o o p p o s e a n y h u t r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l wage i n c r e a s e s f o r u n i o n s * I t i s a ssumed t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e r e t i r e d p e r s o n s f e e l , i n g e n e r a l , t h a t i f wages a r e i n c r e a s e d , t h e n p r i c e s a n d t h e g e n e r a l c o s t o f l i v i n g w i l l t e n d t o i n c r e a s e a l s o . S i n c e m o s t r e t i r e d p e r s o n s h a v e t o l i v e on a r e l a t i v e l y f i x e d i ncome w h i c h w o u l d become d e v a l u e d s h o u l d i n f l a t i o n o c c u r , i t i s assumed t h a t t h i s w i l l c a u s e them t o t e n d t o be a n t i - i n f l a t i o n a r y i n t h e manner h y p o t h e s i z e d a b o v e , a s a means o f p r o m o t i n g t h e e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l g o o d . H y p o t h e s i s l ( i i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f c h a i r m a n , t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f l a w y e r s w i t h t h e e c o n o m i c a n d p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s o f e m p l o y e r s , i n t h e s e n s e o f p e r c e i v i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y t o p r o t e c t a m u t u a l i n t e r e s t , w i l l c a u s e t h e m a j o r i t y o f l a w y e r s who s e r v e a s c h a i r m e n t o be r e l u c t a n t t o e x e r c i s e c o n c i l i a t o r y p r e s s u r e u p o n e m p l o y e r s t h r o u g h t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e . I t i s assumed t h a t an i d e n t i t y o f p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c v a l u e s w o u l d e x i s t b e c a u s e l a b o u r u n i o n s a n d t h e i r d e s i r e s t e n d t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s o c i a l i s t i c p o l i t i c a l i d e a s , w h e r e a s l a w y e r s , b e i n g members o f a \" f r e e p r o f e s s i o n \" whose p r o -f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n w o u l d be a l t e r e d u n d e r a more s o c i a l i s t i c p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m , t e n d t o i d e n t i f y t h e i r i n t e r e s t s w i t h t h e \" f r e e e n t e r p r i s e \" way o f l i f e w i t h w h i c h e m p l o y e r s a r e p e r h a p s e v e n more d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d t h a n t h e y . I t may, o f c o u r s e , he o b j e c t e d t h a t t h i s w i l l n o t be t h e c a s e , b e c a u s e o f t h e t r a i n i n g i n a m o r a l i t y w h i c h l a w y e r s r e c e i v e t h r o u g h b e i n g r e q u i r e d t o a r g u e f i r s t f o r t h e one a n d t h e n f o r t h e o t h e r s i d e o f a c a s e . I n t h e a u t h o r ' s v i e w , h o w e v e r , t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h i s t r a i n i n g c a n be a ssumed t o be r e l a t i v e l y n e g l i g i b l e when j u x t a p o s e d t o t h e enormous f i n a n c i a l r e w a r d s t o be g a i n e d i n t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e b u s i n e s s community a s a c o r p o r a t i o n l a w y e r . H y p o t h e s i s l ( i v ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t l a w y e r s who a p p e a r a s n o m i n e e s w i l l t e n d t o r e d u c e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e two n o m i n e e s r e a c h i n g a p o s i t i o n o f a g r e e m e n t . E l a b o r a t e d somewhat, t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t l a w y e r s , who h a v e , i n t h e v e r y n a t u r e o f t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n , a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n c o n f l i c t , a n d a r e c o n d i t i o n e d t o t h e c o m b a t i v e . u s e o f s u c h c o u r t r o o m t e c h n i q u e s as t h a t o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , w i l l , a s n o m i n e e s o f e i t h e r . p a r t y , t e n d t o a r o u s e a n t a g o n i s m i n t h e n o m i n e e an d p e r s o n n e l o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y , a n d p e r h a p s a l s o — b u t i f s o t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t — i n t h e c h a i r m a n , a n d o b f u s c a t e t h e i s s u e s s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e d i s p u t e b y t h e u s e o f s u c h t e c h n i q u e s , a n d w i l l t h u s t e n d t o r e d u c e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e two n o m i n e e s r e a c h i n g a p o s i t i o n o f a g r e e m e n t . The o b f u s c a t i o n r e f e r r e d t o a b o v e w o u l d , i t i s f e l t , o c c u r t h r o u g h t h e l a w y e r ' s t e n d e n c y t o f a s t e n r e l a t i v e l y i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y u p o n e v e r y f a c t o r a n d t e c h n i c a l i t y , w h e t h e r m i n o r o r m a j o r , w h i c h he f e e l s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o t u r n i n a n y way t o h i s p a r t y ' s a d v a n t a g e , a t e c h n i q u e w h i c h , i t i s f e l t , w o u l d t h u s t e n d t o o b f u s c a t e t h e p r i n c i p a l i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e . t H y p o t h e s i s l ( v ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e amount o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e t h a t a c h a i r m a n h a s h a d c h a i r i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s c h a n c e s o f a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two n o m i n e e s . H y p o t h e s i s l ( v i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e amount o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e t h a t a n o m i n e e h a s h a d a s a n o minee on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s c h a n c e s o f r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . H y p o t h e s i s l ( v i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e amount o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e t h a t a n o m inee h a s h a d a s a n o minee o n C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , t h e g r e a t e r h i s c h a n c e s e i t h e r o f g e t t i n g t h e c h a i r m a n t o s i g n . - w i t h h i m i n a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , o r o f g e t t i n g a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t t h a t i s t o h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . H y p o t h e s i s l ( v i i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , t h e more f a m i l i a r t h e c h a i r m a n i s w i t h t h e t r a d e o r i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n t h e d i s p u t e , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s a b i l i t y t o g e t t h e two n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t , p r e s u m a b l y , t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l h a v e s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s and t h e h i s t o r y o f l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s a n d c o l -l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t s i n t h e i n d u s t r y o r t r a d e i n v o l v e d t o m a x i m i z e h i s c h a n c e s o f a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two n o m i n e e s . H y p o t h e s i s l ( i x ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , t h e more f a m i l i a r a nominee i s w i t h t h e t r a d e o r i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n t h e d i s p u t e , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s a n d w e l f a r e o f h i s p a r t y b y b r i n g i n g a b o u t u n a n i m o u s o r m a j o r i t y r e p o r t s w h i c h t e n d t o s u p p o r t t h e p o s i t i o n o f h i s p a r t y . T h i s w i l l be s o , i t i s assumed, b e c a u s e t h e n o m i n e e ' s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e t r a d e o r i n d u s t r y w i l l e n a b l e h i m t o c o n v i n c e t h e c h a i r m a n , a n d p e r h a p s t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e , t h a t t h e p a r t y he r e p r e s e n t s h a s t h e s t r o n g e r c a s e . H y p o t h e s i s l ( x ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i f t h e c h a i r m a n a n d one o f t h e n o m i n e e s b e l o n g t o t h e same o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s , t h e y w i l l be more l i k e l y t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t more q u i c k l y t h a n i f t h e y b e l o n g e d t o d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s e s . The a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r l y i n g t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t p e r s o n s c o m i n g f r o m t h e same o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s w i l l t e n d t o h a v e s i m i l a r e c o n o m i c a n d p o l i t i c a l s y m p a t h i e s , a n d t h a t t h e y w i l l , f o r t h i s r e a s o n , be more l i k e l y t o r e a c h a p o s i t i o n o f a g r e e m e n t more q u i c k l y t h a n i f t h e y b e l o n g e d t o d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s e s . 25 H y p o t h e s i s l ( x i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i f t h e c h a i r m a n a n d one o f t h e n o m i n e e s b e l o n g t o t h e same o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s , t h e y w i l l , i f u n a n i m i t y i s n o t a c h i e v e d , t e n d t o he more l i k e l y t o i s s u e t h e m a j o r i t y r e p o r t t h a n t h e y w o u l d i f t h e y b e l o n g e d t o d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s e s . H y p o t h e s i s - g r o u p Two I n i t i a l a s s u m p t i o n s . The c e n t r a l theme l i n k i n g t o g e t h e r ' t h i s s e c o n d g r o u p o f h y p o t h e s e s i s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t no u n i t a r y p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e r o l e o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m a n e x i s t s — t h a t , i n d e e d , t h e r e a r e two d i s t i n c t a n d f r e q u e n t l y m u t u a l l y i n c o m p a t i b l e r o l e - c o n c e p t i o n s . T h e s e may s u c c i n c t l y , i f , i n t h e f i r s t c a s e , somewhat c o l l o q u i a l l y , be l a b e l l e d t h e \" w a t c h d o g o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t a n d / o r o f j u s t i c e , \" o r n o r m a t i v e r o l e , a s o p p o s e d t o t h e \" c o n c i l i a t o r p e r s e , \" o r a c c o m m o d a t i v e r o l e . T h i s a s s u m p t i o n , f o r m u l a t e d a s a h y p o t h e s i s , c o n s t i t u t e s H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i ) b e l o w . [ T h r e e d i v e r s e h y p o t h e s e s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e c h a i r m a n a n d t h e two n o m i n e e s , b u t n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e u n i f y i n g theme o f H y p o t h e s i s - g r o u p Two, were a l s o i n c l u d e d , more o r l e s s a r b i t r a r i l y , i n t h i s s e c t i o n . T h e s e a r e H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i ) , H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i ) , a n d H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i x ) . ] H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t two d i s t i n c t c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e r o l e o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m a n e x i s t — t h e n o r m a t i v e r o l e , a n d t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e r o l e . A r e c a p i t u l a t i o n o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e s e two r o l e s w o u l d be i n o r d e r a t t h i s j u n c t u r e . The c h a i r m a n who c o n c e i v e s h i s r o l e a s a p r i m a r i l y n o r m a t i v e one w o u l d a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s b y n o r m a t i v e means ( t h a t i s , b y a s e t o f s t a n d a r d s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c h a i r m a n , w h i c h he c h o o s e s t o d e f i n e b y some n o r m a t i v e s t a n d a r d w h i c h he h o l d s , s u c h a s \" t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , \" o r \" a j u s t s e t t l e m e n t , \" a n d b y r e f e r e n c e t o w h i c h t h e t e r m s o f a g r e e m e n t a r e j u s t i f i e d ) . The c h a i r m a n who c o n c e i v e s h i s r o l e a s a p r i m a r i l y a c c o m m o d a t i v e one w o u l d , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , e n d e a v o u r t o e f f e c t a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s p r e d o m i n a n t l y b y a c c o m m o d a t i v e means ( t h a t i s , he w o u l d a t t e m p t t o g e t t h e l a b o u r a n d management n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t o n a n y t e r m s w h i c h a r e a c c e p t a b l e t o b o t h o f them, r e g a r d l e s s o f what t h e c h a i r m a n h i m s e l f t h i n k s a b o u t t h e j u s t i c e o r d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e s e t e r m s ) . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i i ) . A c h a i r m a n who p e r c e i v e s t h e n o r m a t i v e r o l e a s i n c u m b e n t u p o n h i m w i l l , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , t e n d t o m a i n t a i n o r p e r h a p s w i d e n , r a t h e r t h a n r e d u c e , o r e l i m i n a t e , t h e d i s t a n c e s e p a r a t i n g t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e two n o m i n e e s . I t i s assumed t h a t s u c h a c h a i r m a n w i l l i d e n t i f y what he p e r c e i v e s t o be t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t a n d / o r j u s t i c e a s b e i n g most c l o s e l y a k i n t o one o f t h r e e p o s s i b i l i t i e s : t h e u n i o n p o s i t i o n ; t h e e m p l o y e r p o s i t i o n , o r n e i t h e r — a n y one o f w h i c h a l t e r n a t i v e s ( a l t h o u g h t h e t h i r d c e r t a i n l y n o t n e c e s s a r i l y ) w o u l d , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , t e n d t o m a i n t a i n o r p e r h a p s w i d e n , r a t h e r t h a n r e d u c e , o r e l i m i n a t e , t h e d i s t a n c e s e p a r a t i n g t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e two n o m i n e e s where t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h a i r m a n i s p e r c e i v e d b y one o f t h e n o m i n e e s a s a n abandonment o f h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y a n d a f a v o u r i n g o f t h e p a r t y a n d h e n c e p o s i t i o n o f t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a n o r m a t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l a l w a y s be p e r c e i v e d b y one o f t h e n o m i n e e s a s a n abandonment o f h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y , e x c e p t where t h e c h a i r m a n ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f \" a j u s t s e t t l e m e n t \" o f t h e d i s p u t e c a u s e s h i m t o b e h a v e i n a way w h i c h i s v i e w e d b y e a c h o f t h e n o m i n e e s a s f a v o u r i n g e a c h o f t hem e q u a l l y , o r where he f e e l s t h a t t h e r e a c h i n g o f a n a g r e e m e n t — n o m a t t e r what t h e t e r m s o f t h a t a g r e e m e n t — a n d h e n c e t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f a s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t , c o n s t i t u t e h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . T h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , i t i s f e l t , a r e t h e o n l y o n e s w h i c h w o u l d n o t i n v o l v e a p e r c e p t i o n o n t h e p a r t o f one o f t h e n o m i n e e s o f a n abandonment b y t h e c h a i r m a n o f h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y ; i t i s a ssumed t h a t s u c h \" i m p a r t i a l \" s i t u a t i o n s w i l l , w i t h a n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n , o c c u r much l e s s f r e q u e n t l y t h a n t h e o t h e r two p o s s i b i l i t i e s m e n t i o n e d — a p e r c e p t i o n , on t h e p a r t o f one o f t h e n o m i n e e s , t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n ' s p o s i t i o n i s more c l o s e l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h a t o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y , e i t h e r t h a t o f t h e u n i o n o r t h a t o f t h e e m p l o y e r . The n o m i nee who f e e l s t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n o f h i m s e l f a n d h i s p a r t y i s s u f f e r i n g a s a r e s u l t o f t h e c h a i r m a n ' s abandonment o f h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y 28 w i l l , i t i s assumed, f e e l t h a t t h e e x t e n t o f t h e abandonment o f h i s p o s i t i o n w h i c h h i s s i g n i n g a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t w i t h t h e o t h e r two w o u l d r e q u i r e w o u l d be t o o d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e i n t e r e s t s o f h i s p a r t y t o p e r m i t h i m t o do i t , so t h a t t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e two p a r t i e s w i l l b e , a n d h e n c e t h e d i s p u t e w i l l be, m a i n t a i n e d . I t c o u l d a c t u a l l y be w i d e n e d , n o t i n t h e s e n s e o f i n c r e a s i n g t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e two p a r t i e s o n v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n d i s p u t e , b u t r a t h e r i n t h e s e n s e o f i n t e n s i f y i n g t h e d e s i r e o f one o f t h e n o m i n e e s t o r e m a i n adamant a s a r e s u l t o f h i s r e s e n t m e n t o f what he p e r c e i v e s t o be t h e i n j u s t i c e t o h i s p a r t y o f t h e c h a i r m a n ' s abandonment o f h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y i n f a v o u r o f t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i i i ) . The n o m i nee i n whose f a v o u r t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e p e r c e i v e s t h e c h a i r m a n a s h a v i n g a b a n d o n e d h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y w i l l , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , i f he p e r c e i v e s h i s d e g r e e o f d e p e n d e n c e u p o n t h e d e s i r e s o f h i s p a r t y as g r e a t , a n d i f t h e y h a v e g i v e n h i m r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e room i n w h i c h t o c o m p r o m i s e , have h i s d e g r e e o f i n t r a n s i g e n c e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n ; i f on t h e o t h e r h a n d he h a s b e e n g i v e n a f a i r l y w i d e r a n g e o f p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n w h i c h t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t , t h i s w i l l n o t be t h e c a s e . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i v ) . The n o r m a t i v e r o l e o f t h e c h a i r m a n i s , i n s h o r t , h y p o t h e s i z e d t o be o f t e n — b u t n o t a l w a y s , a s w i l l s u b s e q u e n t l y be s h o w n — i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e 29 t a s k o f g e t t i n g t h e n o m i n e e s t o come t o a g r e e m e n t . The \" c o n c i l i a t o r p e r s e \" i s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , c o m m i t t e d \"by h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f h i s t a s k t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e j o b o f f i n d i n g a c o n c i l i a t o r y f o r m u l a a c c e p t a b l e t o b o t h o f t h e n o m i n e e s , a s w e l l a s a t t e m p t i n g t o i n f l u e n c e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f e a c h i n s u c h a way a s t o b r i n g e a c h c l o s e r t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e o t h e r ; s u c h c o n c e r n s a s \" t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , \" \" a j u s t s e t t l e m e n t , \" e t c e t e r a , w i l l t h e n be f o r h i m — w h e n t h e i r e n d s a n d t h a t o f a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two n o m i n e e s c a n n o t be r e g a r d e d b y h i m a s s y n o n y m o u s — p e r i p h e r a l c o n c e r n s . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v ) . The a n t i c i p a t i o n b y t h e n o m i n e e s o f p u b l i c s u p p o r t o f t h e B o a r d r e p o r t b r i n g s p r e s s u r e , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , t o b e a r o n t h e n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e t o t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e r e p o r t a n d h e n c e t o a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t . I t seems p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e r a t i o n a l e o f t h e c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y a ssumes t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e p a r t i e s , a n d h e n c e t o t h e n o m i n e e s , a s i t r e q u i r e s t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f a n i m p a r t i a l t h i r d p a r t y ( t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m a n ) , p u b l i c i z e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e d i s p u t e , a n d r e q u i r e s t h a t a u n a n i m o u s o r a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t be i s s u e d , p r e s u m a b l y a t l e a s t i n p a r t on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t s u c h r e p o r t s , w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d , w o u l d be s u p p o r t e d b y p u b l i c o p i n i o n . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h i s s u p p o r t w o u l d t h u s b r i n g p r e s s u r e t o b e a r o n t h e n o m i n e e s — b u t e s p e c i a l l y , i n t h e e v e n t o f a n i m p e n d i n g m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , o n t h e m i n o r i t y n o m i n e e — t o a g r e e 30 t o t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e r e p o r t , and, h e n c e , t o a •unanimous r e p o r t . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e r e a r e two p r i n c i p a l r e a s o n s why p u b l i c o p i n i o n a c t s a s a p r e s s u r e t o b r i n g t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s t o a g r e e m e n t , ( a ) One i s t h a t i f t h e e m p l o y e r s e l l s g o o d s o r s e r v i c e s d i r e c t l y t o t h e p u b l i c , he d o e s n o t , i f he c a n a v o i d i t , want t o l o s e o r l e s s e n t h e g o o d - w i l l o f t h e p u b l i c t h r o u g h t h e i n c o n v e n i e n c e o f a s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t , ( b ) The o t h e r i s , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n s i g n i f i e s a p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d a l t e r o r e l i m i n a t e t h e p r e s e n t c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t d o e s n o t work w e l l e n o u g h , n o t b e i n g e f f i c i e n t e n o u g h i n g e t t i n g t h e two p a r t i e s t o a g r e e , a n d r e p l a c e i t w i t h d i s p u t e - s e t t l i n g m a c h i n e r y w h i c h w o u l d r e s t r i c t s u c h c u r r e n t r i g h t s a s t h e r i g h t o f u n i o n s a n d e m p l o y e r s t o b a r g a i n f r e e l y o v e r wages a n d o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s o f employment, a n d t o s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t s h o u l d t h i s b a r g a i n i n g p r o v e u n s u c c e s s f u l . A l e s s l i k e l y b u t n o n e t h e l e s s p o s s i b l e g o a l o f s u c h r e s t r i c t i v e a n d , p r e s u m a b l y , f e a r e d l e g i s l a t i o n w o u l d be some a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e w a g e - p r o f i t r a t i o i n f a v o u r o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s . S h o u l d a s u f f i c i e n t number o f i n d i v i d u a l s a n d / o r p r e s s u r e g r o u p s become a r o u s e d s u f f i c i e n t l y f r e q u e n t l y b y what t h e y c o n s i d e r e x a g g e r a t e d demands o r u n j u s t i f i e d i n t r a n s i g e n c e o n t h e p a r t o f l a b o u r a n d / o r management, p o i n t i n g t o t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f s t r i k e s o r l o c k o u t s c o s t l y t o t h e economy 31 and inconvenient to many persons not d i r e c t l y involved i n them, or should C o n c i l i a t i o n Board s i t t i n g s d i s c l o s e , i n the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board report, a wage-profit r a t i o which many persons or groups not d i r e c t l y involved would consider unjust, i t would he possible f o r these people or groups to brin g s u f f i c i e n t pressure to bear upon the p o l i t i c a l personnel representing them to bring some such l e g i s l a t i o n i n t o being. I t i s equally p o s s i b l e , of course, that l e g i s l a t o r s would, should they so perceive the circumstances, b r i n g such l e g i s l a t i o n into being on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e . Hypothesis 2 ( v i i ) . I t i s . hypothesized, however, that the normative (as opposed to the accommodative) approach on the part of the chairman w i l l be e f f e c t i v e ( i n the sense of bringing the two nominees int o agreement) only i n those Industries or trades (which are large, of great importance to the en t i r e economy, and which are hence) r e l a t i v e l y s e n s i t i v e to pu b l i c opinion. The reason f o r t h i s i s that only such i n d u s t r i e s or trades would, i t i s assumed, have s u f f i c i e n t cause to be apprehensive about r e s t r i c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n so that t h i s apprehension would outweigh t h e i r unwillingness to come to terms i n accord with the normative c r i t e r i a employed by the chairman, rather than i n accord \" with terms the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of which depends only upon the r e l a t i v e d e s i r a b i l i t y of these terms from the point of view of the p a r t i e s alone. I t i s therefore, of course, also hypothesized that i n i n d u s t r i e s or trades unlike these, 32 w h i c h a r e t h e r e f o r e o f r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l c o n c e r n t o t h e p u b l i c , a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n i s t h e o n l y v a r i e t y t h a t i s l i k e l y t o be e f f e c t i v e i n t h e s e n s e o f p e r s u a d i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i n c o n c i l i a t i o n c a s e s i n i n d u s t r i e s o r t r a d e s w h i c h a r e l a r g e , o f g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e e n t i r e economy, a n d w h i c h a r e h e n c e r e l a t i v e l y s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n , t h e c h a i r m a n (who w i l l be u n d e r t h e s c r u t i n y o f t h e p u b l i c a n d / o r l e g i s l a t o r s ) w i l l a l m o s t i n e v i t a b l y p e r c e i v e h i s r o l e a s r e q u i r i n g t h a t he show c o n c e r n f o r t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t b y a c t i n g i n p r e d o m i n a n t l y n o r m a t i v e t e r m s . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i x ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , h o w e v e r , t h e m a j o r i t y o f n o m i n e e s r e p r e s e n t i n g l a b o u r a n d management i n v o l v e d i n i n d u s t r i e s v u l n e r a b l e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n ( a s d e f i n e d a b o v e ) w i l l a v o i d e x a g g e r a t e d p o s i t i o n s t o b e g i n w i t h , and- be r e l a t i v e l y w i l l i n g t o make m u t u a l c o n c e s s i o n s a s a r e s u l t o f t h e i r a w a r e n e s s o f , a n d h e n c e t h e i r d e s i r e t o a v o i d , t h e p o s s i b l e r e s t r i c t i v e i y l e g i s l a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f p u b l i c w r a t h . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x ) . Where, h o w e v e r , a d i s p u t e i n s u c h a n i n d u s t r y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a h o s t i l e ( r a t h e r t h a n a c o n c i l i a t o r y ) a t t i t u d e , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t n o r m a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l be t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e f o r i n f l u e n c i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s 33 i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f , a n d p e r h a p s t o , a g r e e m e n t * The r a t i o n a l e u n d e r l y i n g t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h i s h o s t i l i t y w o u l d t e n d t o p r e c l u d e t h e c o m p r o m i s i n g abandonment o f t h e i r i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n s w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d b y a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n , t h e s e a d a m a n t l y m a i n t a i n e d p o s i t i o n s b e i n g , i t i s assumed, t h e m o s t p r o b a b l e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h i s h o s t i l i t y . I t was n o t , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , u n t i l a f t e r t h e f o r e -g o i n g r a t i o n a l e h a d b e e n t e s t e d i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t i t s i l l o g i c a l i t y became a p p a r e n t t o t h e a u t h o r : a n abandonment o f i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n s i s , o f c o u r s e , a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l t o t h e s u c c e s s o f b o t h n o r m a t i v e a n d a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n , a n d c a n n o t t h e r e f o r e be i n v o k e d t o e x p l a i n t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e n o r m a t i v e a p p r o a c h i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t . The h y p o t h e s i s i s n o n e t h e l e s s r e g a r d e d a s v a l i d , b u t f o r a d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n : t h e n o r m a t i v e a p p r o a c h o n t h e p a r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n i s r e g a r d e d a s b e i n g t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e c o n c i l i a t o r y t e c h n i q u e a v a i l a b l e t o a c h a i r m a n where a d i s p u t e i n a n i n d u s t r y v u l n e r a b l e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y h o s t i l i t y b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s b e c a u s e , i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e , i t w o u l d be c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y an a t t e m p t on t h e p a r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n t o b r i n g t o b e a r t h e p r e s s u r e o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n a n d i t s p o t e n t i a l s a n c t i o n s , o r p o s s i b l y o f some o t h e r n o r m a t i v e s t a n d a r d , i n a n a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t . The a c c o m m o d a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d c h a i r m a n , h o w e v e r , w o u l d n o t r e g a r d 34 n o r m a t i v e s t a n d a r d s ( i n t h i s c a s e , most p r o b a b l y , o f c o u r s e , t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , m a n i f e s t e d i n t h e d e s i r e o f t h e p u b l i c f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f e c o n o m i c s t a b i l i t y a n d f u l l employment w i t h o u t work s t o p p a g e s i n t h e i n d u s t r y ) as h a v i n g a l e g i t i -mate p l a c e i n , o r a s b e i n g r e l e v a n t t o , t h e a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s a n d t h e p a r t i e s , a n d w o u l d t h e r e f o r e h a v e t o r e l y t o a much g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n w o u l d t h e n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n u p o n t h e d e s i r e o f t h e n o m i n e e s a n d t h e p a r t i e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t a t t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s t a g e . I t i s assumed t h a t , a t t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s t a g e , t h e most p r o b a b l e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e h o s t i l i t y e x i s t i n g b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s w o u l d be a n u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o s h i f t f r o m i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n s . T h u s , i n a b a r g a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g h o s t i l i t y i n a n i m p o r t a n t i n d u s t r y , t h e n o r m a t i v e a p p r o a c h o n t h e p a r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n i s r e g a r d e d a s b e i n g t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e f o r i n f l u e n c i n g t h e n o m i n e e s t o a b a n d o n t h e i r i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n s a n d move i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f , o r p e r h a p s t o , a g r e e m e n t . To p u t f o r w a r d t h i s a s s e r t i o n i s n o t , h o w e v e r , t o d e c l a r e t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e a p p r o a c h w i l l a l w a y s , o r e v e n n e c e s s a r i l y v e r y f r e q u e n t l y , be e f f e c t i v e u n d e r t h e above c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; t h e m e a n i n g i n t e n d e d b y t h e p h r a s e \" t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e \" i s t h a t t h i s t e c h n i q u e i s r e g a r d e d a s t h e o n l y one w i t h a n y p o s s i b i l i t y o f s u c c e s s . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e b a r g a i n i n g power o f t h e p a r t y a n d t h e t y p e o f r o l e w h i c h a nominee w o u l d p r e f e r t h a t t h e 35 c h a i r m a n a d o p t . Where a f a i r l y m a r k e d s u p e r i o r i t y o f b a r g a i n i n g p ower i s p o s s e s s e d b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s ( i n t h e s e n s e o f i t s b e i n g b e t t e r a b l e t h a n t h e o t h e r t o w i t h s t a n d t h e e c o n o m i c c o s t s a n d l o s s e s i m p o s e d b y a s t r i k e o r l o c k -o u t ) , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e n o m inee r e p r e s e n t i n g t h i s p a r t y w o u l d p r e f e r t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n a d o p t a n a c c o m m o d a t i v e a p p r o a c h , b e c a u s e , g i v e n s u p e r i o r b a r g a i n i n g p o w e r o n t h e p a r t o f one p a r t y a n d a n a c c o m m o d a t i v e m e t h o d o f c o n c i l i a t i o n , an a g r e e m e n t , s h o u l d i t be r e a c h e d b e t w e e n t h e two n o m i n e e s ( a t t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s t a g e , o f c o u r s e ) , w i l l , p r e s u m a b l y , f a v o u r t h e n o m inee r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a r t y w i t h t h e g r e a t e r b a r g a i n i n g power. C o n v e r s e l y . , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e n o m i n e e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a r t y w i t h t h e l e s s e r b a r g a i n i n g power w i l l p r e f e r t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n t a k e a p r e d o m i n a n t l y n o r m a t i v e a p p r o a c h — i n o r d e r t h a t he be a b l e t o a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y t h e d e s i r e s o f h i s p a r t y w i t h w h a t e v e r n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i o n t h e c h a i r m a n a p p e a r s t o be u s i n g , a n d t h u s . p e r h a p s g a i n a B o a r d r e p o r t w h i c h i s more t o h i s p a r t y ' s a d v a n t a g e t h a n t o t h a t o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e p r e s s w i l l be p e r c e i v e d b y t h e n o m i n e e s a s t h e most s i g n i - f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e r o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n a b o u t t h e d i s p u t e , a n d w i l l t h e r e f o r e c o n s t i t u t e f o r t h e n o m i n e e s a s o u r c e o f p r e s s u r e t o w a r d a g r e e m e n t . . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , when a d i s p u t e h a s o c c u r r e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l community, and when \"both n o m i n e e s a r e members o f t h a t community, b o t h n o m i n e e s w i l l p e r c e i v e t h e i r r o l e s a s r e q u i r i n g ; more c o n c i l i a t o r y b e h a v i o u r t h a n w o u l d t h e i r u r b a n c o u n t e r p a r t s . I t i s f e l t t h a t t h i s i s so b e c a u s e i t i s assumed t h a t s u c h n o m i n e e s w i l l be more s u s c e p t i b l e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n , b y v i r t u e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i n d u s t r y o r t r a d e w i t h w h i c h t h e i r p a r t i e s a r e c o n n e c t e d a c c o u n t s f o r a l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e employment i n a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l community t h a n i t w o u l d i n a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e c ommunity, a n d h e n c e e x a g g e r a t e d p o s i t i o n s a n d i n t r a n s i g e n c e w o u l d be more l i k e l y t o a r o u s e more p e o p l e t o w r a t h a n d p o s s i b l e l e g i s l a t i v e r e s t r i c t i o n , a s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i v ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i f t h e t o n e w h i c h h a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e two d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s i n t h e p a s t h a s b e e n one o f h o s t i l i t y a n d / o r c o n t e m p t , t h e n n o m i n e e s w i l l be c h o s e n f o r t h e i r t o u g h p a r t i s a n s h i p . I t i s assumed t h a t , where s u c h a b a r g a i n i n g h i s t o r y e x i s t s , n o m i n e e s w i l l p e r c e i v e t h e i r b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s w i t h one a n o t h e r a s a f o r m o f w a r f a r e , t h e m o t i v e b e h i n d w h i c h i s a s much d e s i r e t o weaken t h e o t h e r g r o u p a s t o g a i n c o n c e s s i o n s f o r o n e ' s own g r o u p , a n d w i l l p e r c e i v e t h e i r r o l e s as r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e y c o n d u c t them a s s u c h . S u c h a s i t u a t i o n , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , p r e -c l u d e s t h e c h a i r m a n ' s u s e o f p r e d o m i n a n t l y a c c o m m o d a t i v e means o f g e t t i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h o r e v e n t o a p p r o a c h a g r e e m e n t , an d l e a v e s n o r m a t i v e m e t h o d s , r e n d e r e d p o w e r f u l b y t h e p r e s s u r e o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t a n d o p i n i o n , t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e means o p e n t o t h e c h a i r m a n f o r t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h i s t a s k . T h i s i s assumed t o be so f o r t h e same r e a s o n as i n H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x ) . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v ) . The f o r e g o i n g m a t e r i a l w i l l a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y h a v e c r e a t e d t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t n o r m a t i v e and a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s o f p e r s u a s i o n , a s d i r e c t e d a t t h e n o m i n e e s b y t h e c h a i r m a n , a r e m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e , b u t i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , where a c h a i r m a n i s u s i n g a b a s i c a l l y a c c o m m o d a t i v e method, he w i l l a l m o s t a l w a y s b r i n g t o b e a r , i n a d d i t i o n , t h e p r e s s u r e o f n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a ( i n o r d e r t o g e t t h e two t o a g r e e i n a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e r m s ) ; i t i s t h u s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i n a l l c o n c i l i a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e t y p e , b o t h t h e n o m i n e e s a n d t h e c h a i r m a n a r e aware o f , a n d make u s e o f , n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y w h i c h t h e c h a i r m a n d e m o n s t r a t e s t o w a r d t h e b e h a v i o u r o f one nominee w i l l f o r c e t h e o t h e r nominee t o b e h a v e t o w a r d t h e c h a i r m a n i n t h e same manner. T h i s w i l l o c c u r o n l y p r o v i d e d t h a t b o t h n o m i n e e s h a v e a d e s i r e t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a j o r i t y r e p o r t — w h i c h i s t o s a y t h a t t h e y p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y o p p o s e d so a s t o p r e c l u d e a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , b u t b o t h r e g a r d i t a s more o f a n a d v a n t a g e t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a j o r i t y r e p o r t ( b y r e a s o n o f t h e power i t u s u a l l y g r a n t s a s a b a r g a i n i n g l e v e r , b o t h i n i t s e l f a n d t h r o u g h t h e s u p p o r t o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n ) t h a n t o m a i n t a i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n s a d a m a n t l y . S h o u l d t h i s d e s i r e e x i s t , t h e n , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e s u s c e p t i - • b i l i t y w h i c h t h e c h a i r m a n d e m o n s t r a t e s t o w a r d t h e b e h a v i o u r o f one n o m i n e e ( w h e t h e r t h i s b e h a v i o u r be p r e d o m i n a n t l y a g g r e s s i v e l y adamant, m a l l e a b l y r e a s o n a b l e , o r a n y t y p e o f b e h a v i o u r i n t e r m e d i a t e t o t h e s e more o r l e s s p o l a r t y p e s ) w i l l f o r c e t h e o t h e r nominee t o b e h a v e t o w a r d t h e c h a i r m a n i n t h e same manner. H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a c h a i r m a n w i l l b r i n g p r e s s u r e t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t t o b e a r u p o n t h e n o m inee whose p a r t y h a s p r e s e n t e d t h e p o o r e r e v i d e n c e , t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f t h e s u p e r i o r e v i d e n c e . The \" e v i d e n c e \" m e n t i o n e d above h a s r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f e a c h p a r t y t o t h e d i s p u t e p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e t o t h e B o a r d i n t h e f o r m o f a b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f i t s p o s i t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e m a t t e r s i n d i s p u t e . I t i s assumed t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e q u a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e two p a r t i e s w i l l d i f f e r , t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e i n f e r e n c e s drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e f o l l o w l o g i c a l l y f r o m i t c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e c r i t e r i o n o f q u a l i t y . I t i s f u r t h e r assumed t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l , b e f o r e he h a s d e c i d e d o n t h e s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y o f . t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s , d e t e r m i n e s a t i s f a c t o r i l y — m o s t p r o b a b l y t h r o u g h c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i n d e p e n d e n t e x p e r t s s u c h as e c o n o m i s t s , s t a t i s t i c i a n s , a c c o u n t a n t s , e t c e t e r a — t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a f a l s i f i c a t i o n a n d / o r d i s t o r t i o n o f t h e f a c t s s u c h t h a t t h e d r a w i n g o f t h e a h o v e m e n t i o n e d i n f e r e n c e s f r o m i t i s i l l e g i t i m a t e l y f a c i l i t a t e d . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , where a c h a i r m a n v i e w s h i s r o l e a s t h a t o f c o n c i l i a t o r b y a c c o m m o d a t i v e means, he w i l l , where a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t d o e s n o t seem l i k e l y t o m a t e r i a l i z e , d e c l a r e h i s i n t e n t i o n o f s i g n i n g w i t h t h e adamant nominee s h o u l d a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t n o t be f o r t h c o m i n g . F o r what i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t o o c c u r , h o w e v e r , c e r t a i n q u a l i f y i n g c o n d i t i o n s — r e a l l y p a r t o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s b u t r e c o r d e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r t h e s a k e o f c l a r i t y — must be met: t h e adamant nominee must r e p r e s e n t a p a r t y w h i c h h a s a m a r k e d p r e d o m i n a n c e o f b a r g a i n i n g power i n t h a t i t i s b e t t e r a b l e t h a n t h e o t h e r p a r t y t o w i t h s t a n d t h e e c o n o m i c c o s t s a n d l o s s e s i n v o l v e d i n a s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t ; t h e o t h e r p a r t y must be r e p r e s e n t e d b y a more p l a s t i c n o m i n e e ; a n d t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l b e h a v e a s h y p o t h e s i z e d o n l y i f he i s n o t p r e v e n t e d f r o m d o i n g so b y s u c h n o r m a t i v e . c r i t e r i a a s t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e , p u b l i c o p i n i o n , t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , a j u s t s e t t l e m e n t , e t c e t e r a — w h i c h i s , o f c o u r s e , u n l i k e l y i n t h a t , a s h a s b e e n s a i d , he i s a c h a i r m a n who i s p r e d o m i n a n t l y a c c o m m o d a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d . T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n h y p o t h e s i z e d b e l o w s u b s e q u e n t t o H y p o t h e s i s 4 ( i ) f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : i f t h e c h a i r m a n d e c l a r e s h i s i n t e n t i o n t o s i g n w i t h t h e nominee w e a k e r i n b a r g a i n i n g p ower s h o u l d a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t n o t be f o r t h c o m i n g , he makes t h i s n o m i n e e a n d h i s p a r t y p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s a s more e q u a l i n b a r g a i n i n g power ( n o t , o f c o u r s e , i n t h e s e n s e o f m a k i n g them seem more e c o n o m i c a l l y a b l e t o w i t h s t a n d t h e c o s t s a n d l o s s e s i n v o l v e d i n a s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t , b u t i n t h e s e n s e o f s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e i r b a r -g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n b y s u p p o r t i n g t h e i r demands o r o f f e r s ) , a n d h e n c e makes a d i s a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s more l i k e l y ; i f , h o w e v e r , he d e c l a r e s h i s i n t e n t i o n o f s i g n i n g w i t h t h e nominee w i t h t h e g r e a t e r b a r g a i n i n g power, t h i s w i l l s e r v e t o i n c r e a s e t h e p r e s s u r e o n t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e t o c a p i t u l a t e a n d s i g n a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t ( i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d i n r e t u r n f o r some m i n o r \" f a c e - s a v i n g \" c o n c e s s i o n f r o m t h e m a j o r i t y p a r t y ) . W i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e m a t t e r o f b a r g a i n i n g p o wer, h o w e v e r , i t i s n o t assumed t h a t i n e q u a l i t y o f i t e x i s t s i n a l l i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e s . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i x ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , when t h e c h a i r m a n i s u n a b l e t o g e t t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e , he w i l l more f r e q u e n t l y s i g i a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s . The p a r t i e s may h a v e b a r g a i n e d down f r o m t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n s , b u t be u n a b l e 12 F o r t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , t h e r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o t h e s e n t e n c e w h i c h r e a d s f r o m t h e b o t t o m o f page 49 t o t h e t o p o f p a g e 5 0 . t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t . The two p a r t i e s u s u a l l y . t a k e i n i t i a l l y e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e u n i o n t y p i c a l l y a s k s f o r two o r t h r e e t i m e s what i t a c t u a l l y h o p e s t o g e t , a n d t h e e m p l o y e r t y p i c a l l y o f f e r s h a l f a s much as he a c t u a l l y e x p e c t s t o h a v e t o g i v e . When t h e two n o m i n e e s c a n n o t a g r e e o n a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , t h e y f r e q u e n t l y r e t u r n t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n s i n o r d e r t o g i v e t h e i r p a r t i e s p l e n t y o f b a r g a i n i n g room, a s t h e f i n a l b a r g a i n i n g ( t h a t i s , t h e b a r g a i n i n g t h a t o c c u r s a f t e r t h e r e p o r t h a s b e e n i s s u e d a n d r e j e c t e d b y one o r p e r h a p s b o t h o f t h e p a r t i e s ) g e n e r a l l y b e g i n s a t t h e p o s i t i o n s w h i c h e a c h n o minee t o o k i n t h e m a j o r i t y a n d m i n o r i t y r e p o r t s . I n s u c h a c a s e t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l more f r e q u e n t l y s i g n w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e , a s h i s i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n w i l l more f r e q u e n t l y be l e s s e x t r e m e t h a t t h e i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e u n i o n . H y p o t h e s i s - g r o u p T h r e e The c o n j e c t u r e t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t two o f t h e members o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d a r e n o m i n a t e d b y t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s h a s a n e f f e c t on t h e i r c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e i r r o l e s , a n d on t h e p r o c e s s o f a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t t h e two n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t , p r o v i d e s t h e theme on w h i c h t h e h y p o t h e s e s o f Group T h r e e a r e v a r i a t i o n s . F o r e x a m p l e , H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) ( a ) s u g g e s t s t h a t , a s n o m i n e e s , t h e y r e g a r d t h e m s e l v e s a s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , c o m m u n i c a t o r s , a c o n c e p t i o n w h i c h * i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , i s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e i r r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t , a n d h e n c e i s s u i n g a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t ; H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) ( c ) s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e y p e r c e i v e a n o b l i g a t i o n t o a c t , i n p a r t , a s p r o t e c t o r s o f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p a r t i e s who n o m i n a t e d them, b e h a v i o u r w h i c h , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , i s d y s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e i r r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t and w i l l t h u s t e n d t o r e s u l t i n t h e i s s u i n g o f a m a j o r i t y a n d a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t . H y p o t h e s i s 3(i)» I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i n t h e p r o c e s s o f c o n c i l i a t i n g i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e s b y means o f a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d , t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s ( a ) , ( b ) , a n d ( c ) , d e f i n e d b e l o w , a r e t h e t h r e e d e c i s i v e o n e s b e a r i n g u p o n t h e outcome o f t h e c h a i r m a n ' s e f f o r t s t o g e t t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e . T h e s e h y p o t h e s e s a r e assumed t o a p p l y o n l y t o d i s p u t e s i n w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r c o n c i l i a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n o f r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t o r n o t d o i n g so on t h e b a s i s o f t h e c r i t e r i o n o f t h e i n t r i n s i c a c c e p t a b i l i t y o r n o n - a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t h e t e r m s o f f e r e d ; t h e y do n o t h a v e r e f e r e n c e t o d i s p u t e s i n w h i c h , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a s t r i k e i s a c t u a l l y d e s i r e d b y t h e u n i o n o f f i c i a l s a s a means o f , f o r e x a m p l e , h e i g h t e n i n g t h e s o l i d a r i t y o f t h e u n i o n , a n d a p p a r e n t l y d e m o n s t r a t i n g d r a m a t i c a l l y t h e v i t a l i m p o r t a n c e o f i t s r o l e i n w i n n i n g t h e d e s i r e s o f i t s members a g a i n s t management o p p o s i t i o n ; o r , p o s s i b l y , f o r e x a m p l e , i n w h i c h a s t r i k e w i t h a q u i c k s u r r e n d e r b y management t o a p o s i t i o n t h e y were i n r e a l i t y q u i t e p r e p a r e d t o g r a n t a l l a l o n g may a c t u a l l y be d e s i r e d b y management a s a means o f k e e p i n g t h e u n i o n c o n t r o l l e d a n d u n d i s g r u n t l e d b y , unknown t o i t , h e l p i n g i t t o a p p e a r s t r o n g a n d u n c o m p r o m i s i n g . I n s h o r t , t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s a p p l y o n l y t o i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e s i n w h i c h t h e a v o i d a n c e o f a s t r i k e a n d / o r l o c k o u t t h r o u g h c o n c i l i a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s i s a c t u a l l y a p o s s i b i l i t y . T h e y a r e assumed t o be o p e r a t i v e i n s u c h a way a s t o be- n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d , a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s b e i n g a c h i e v e d when f a c t o r s ( a ) a n d ( b ) a r e d o m i n a n t l y o p e r a t i v e , and n o t b e i n g a c h i e v e d when f a c t o r ( c ) i s d o m i n a n t l y o p e r a t i v e , i t b e i n g assumed f u r t h e r t h a t a l l , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f ( b ) , a r e a l w a y s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y o p e r a t i v e i n a n y C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d e n d e a v o u r i n g t o c o n c i l i a t e t h e t y p e o f d i s p u t e i n d i c a t e d a b o v e . ( a ) ( H o l d i n g t h e n a t u r e a n d i n t e n s i t y o f t h e d i s p u t e c o n s t a n t ) i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e r e q u i r i n g , b y l a w , o f p a r t y - n o m i n a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s on t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d i s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e g o a l o f g e t t i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e . The r e q u i r i n g o f p a r t y - n o m i n a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s on t h e B o a r d g i v e s e a c h o f t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s d i r e c t a n d c o n s t a n t a c c e s s t o i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a n d v i c e - v e r s a , a n d g i v e s a s w e l l e a c h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d i r e c t a n d c o n s t a n t a c c e s s t o t h e o t h e r , a n d , h e n c e , g i v e s e a c h d i s p u t i n g p a r t y c o n s t a n t i n d i r e c t a c c e s s t o t h e o t h e r . T h i s , i t i s f e l t , i s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e g o a l o f g e t t i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e i n t h a t i t c a n make known t o e a c h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , i n a n a c c u r a t e way, 44 what t h e one i s w i l l i n g t o g r a n t , a n d what t h e o t h e r i s w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t , w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o e a c h m a t t e r r e l e v a n t t o t h e d i s p u t e ; t h i s k n o w l e d g e i s v i e w e d a s t h e most i m p o r t a n t n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n t o r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t , d e f i n e d a s m a k i n g t h e two a h o v e m e n t i o n e d p o s i t i o n s synonymous. ( b ) ( H o l d i n g t h e n a t u r e a n d i n t e n s i t y o f t h e d i s p u t e c o n s t a n t ) i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t ( a s t h e n o m i n e e s w i l l he s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c a n d / o r p a r t y p e r s o n n e l s c r u t i n y a n d o p i n i o n o f t h e n o m i n e e s ' p o s i t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o n c i l i a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s ) t h e p r e s e n c e o f p o s i t i o n s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l be p e r c e i v e d b y t h e n o m i n e e s a s p r o v i d i n g a v e n u e s o f r e t r e a t t o p o s i t i o n s c l o s e r t o a g r e e m e n t f o r w h i c h n e i t h e r n o m inee w i l l a p p e a r t o b e a r a p r e d o m i n a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h i s w i l l t e n d t o r e d u c e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e p a r t i e s c h a r g i n g t h e i r n o m i n e e s w i t h f a i l u r e t o c a r r y o u t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y t h e r o l e - b e h a v i o u r , p e r c e i v e d b y b o t h p a r t y a n d nominee a s l e g i t i m a t e a n d r e q u i r e d , o f p r o t e c t i n g t h e p a r t y ' s i n t e r e s t s . ( c ) ( H o l d i n g t h e n a t u r e a n d i n t e n s i t y o f t h e d i s p u t e c o n s t a n t ) i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e r e q u i r i n g , b y l a w , o f p a r t y - n o m i n a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ( t h u s g i v i n g e a c h o f t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s d i r e c t a n d c o n s t a n t a c c e s s t o one member o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d ) i s a l s o d y s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e g o a l o f g e t t i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e o r t o l e s s e n t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s b a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h i s l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o p e r a t e s t o m i n i m i z e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f n o m i n e e s b e i n g i m p a r t i a l — t h a t i s , v i e w i n g t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r p a r t y , i n t h e s e n s e o f t h e m a x i m a l m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n , a s b e i n g s e c o n d a r y t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e d i s p u t e — i t b e i n g f e l t t h a t t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t , t h o u g h n o t , o f c o u r s e , t h e o n l y , c r i t e r i o n o f t h e i r e l i g i b i l i t y f o r n o m i n a t i o n i s t h e i r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o t h e p r e s s u r e s b r o u g h t t o b e a r u p o n them, t h r o u g h t h i s a c c e s s , t o r e g a r d t h e i r p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n as t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r p a r t y , i n t h e s e n s e d e f i n e d a b o v e . H y p o t h e s i s 3(ii)« I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t e a c h n o m i n e e w i l l u s e a t e c h n i q u e o f a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s much o f w h i c h i s p a r t i s a n ( i n t h a t i t i s d e s i g n e d t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e p a r t y he r e p r e s e n t s , a n d h e n c e h i s own p o s i t i o n , a n d weaken t h a t o f t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e ) . • H y p o t h e s i s 3(iii)» I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t e a c h n o m i n e e w i l l p e r c e i v e h i s a p p r o p r i a t e r o l e a s c o n s i s t i n g p r i n c i p a l l y i n t h e two f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) ( a ) a n d 3 ( i ) ( c ) a b o v e . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s t h u s c o n j e c t u r e s t h a t e a c h n o minee w i l l c o n c e n t r a t e u p o n two m a i n t a s k s — t h a t o f a t t e m p t i n g t o f i n d o u t what t h e o t h e r p a r t y i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g t o g r a n t o r t o a c c e p t w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o e a c h m a t t e r i n d i s p u t e ; a n d t h a t o f a t t e m p t i n g t o p r o t e c t , t o t h e g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e e x t e n t , t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p a r t y t h e y r e p r e s e n t , r e g a r d i n g t h i s a s more i m p o r t a n t t h a n a t t e m p t i n g t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . H y p o t h e s i s 3(iv)« I t i s f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a n o m i n e e ' s p e r f o r m a n c e i n h i s r o l e o f n o m inee w i l l be e v a l u a t e d b y t h e p a r t y w h i c h he r e p r e s e n t s i n t e r m s o f t h e s k i l l w i t h w h i c h he manages t o p e r f o r m t h e two f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) and 3 ( 1 ) ( c ) above ( w h i c h i s t o s a y t h a t i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s , a l s o , w i l l c o n c e i v e o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r o l e o f t h e i r n ominee a s c o n s i s t i n g i n t h e s e two f u n c t i o n s ) , a n d t h a t t h i s w i l l c o n s t i t u t e a p r e s s u r e t o w a r d a n o m i n e e ' s b e h a v i n g i n t h i s manner. H y p o t h e s i s 3(v)« I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , h o w e v e r some n o m i n e e s w i l l show v a r y i n g d e g r e e s o f i n d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e p a r t i e s w h i c h t h e y r e p r e s e n t , a n d t h a t t h i s i n d e p e n d e n c e when i t o c c u r s , w i l l a l m o s t a l w a y s be i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f b e i n g more c o n c i l i a t o r y t h a n t h e i r p a r t i e s h a d i n d i c a t e d t o t hem t h a t t h e y d e s i r e d t hem t o b e . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t i t i s assumed t h a t , i n o r d e r t h a t t h e y g i v e t h e m s e l v e s room i n w h i c h t o b a r g a i n a n d a r a n g e w i t h i n w h i c h t o a t t e m p t t o g a i n t h e most f a v o u r a b l e p o s s i b l e t e r m s o f a g r e e m e n t f o r t h e m s e l v e s , e a c h p a r t y w i l l h a v e t a k e n a n i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n w h i c h i s , i n c o m p a r i s o n t o what i t i s w i l l i n g t o g r a n t o r t o a c c e p t , e x a g g e r a t e d i n i t s f a v o u r . A c e r t a i n amount o f k n o w l e d g e on t h e p a r t o f one n o m inee o f what t h e p a r t y o f t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g t o g r a n t o r t o a c c e p t i s g a i n e d b y e a c h nominee d u r i n g t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i t t i n g s t h r o u g h t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r d e s c r i b e d i n H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) ( a ) a b o v e . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e t h a t t h e c h a n c e s o f t h e p a r t y B n o m inee p e r c e i v i n g t h a t what p a r t y A i s w i l l i n g t o a g r e e t o f a l l s o u t s i d e t h e i n i t i a l r a n g e o f n e g o t i a t i n g p o s i t i o n s p r e p a r e d b y p a r t y B, i n s u c h a way a s t o be more a d v a n t a g e o u s t o p a r t y B t h a n t h e m o s t a d v a n t a g e o u s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h a t i n i t i a l r a n g e , a r e e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y i n d e e d , w h e r e a s , i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d h a p p e n i n g , t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e p a r t y B nominee p e r c e i v i n g t h a t what p a r t y A w i l l a g r e e t o f a l l s o u t s i d e o f p a r t y B's b a r g a i n i n g r a n g e i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f b e i n g l e s s a d v a n t a g e o u s t o p a r t y B t h a n t h e l e a s t a d v a n t a g e o u s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h i s r a n g e i s much g r e a t e r . T h e r e f o r e s i n c e we assume t h a t t h e p a r t y B n o m inee v i e w s h i s t a s k a s b e i n g ( i f i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a c c o m p l i s h w i t h o u t t h e e c o n o m i c p r e s s u r e o f a n a c t u a l s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t ) t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e p a r t y A n o m inee o n t e r m s w h i c h g i v e t h e maximum a d v a n t a g e t o p a r t y B w h i c h p a r t y A i s w i l l i n g t o g r a n t ( i t b e i n g , o f c o u r s e , b y d e f i n i t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o a g r e e m e n t t h a t p a r t y B be w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t t h i s p o s i t i o n o f p a r t y A ) , i t i s f a r more l i k e l y t h a t he w i l l show h i m s e l f t o be t o some e x t e n t i n d e p e n d e n t o f h i s p a r t y i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f b e i n g more c o n c i l i a t o r y b y r e d u c i n g h i s p a r t y ' s demands t h a n i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f b e i n g l e s s so b y i n c r e a s i n g them. 48 H y p o t h e s i s 3(vi)« I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , s h o u l d a n o m i n e e i n d i c a t e s u c h c o n c i l i a t o r y i n d e p e n d e n c e t o t h e c h a i r m a n , t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l a t t e m p t t o g e t t h e o t h e r n o m inee t o compromise i n t h e same way; a n d t h a t , s h o u l d a n o m i n e e i n d i c a t e s u c h c o n c i l i a t o r y i n d e p e n d e n c e t o t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e , t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e w i l l t e n d t o show t h e same k i n d o f c o n c i l i a t o r y i n d e p e n d e n c e h i m s e l f * H y p o t h e s i s - g r o u p F o u r T h e s e h y p o t h e s e s a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o n c i l i -a t i o n B o a r d be a m a j o r i t y d e c i s i o n p l a c e s u p o n t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e c h a i r m a n t o b r i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e m e n t . H y p o t h e s i s 4 ( i ) . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e l a w r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d h a n d down a d e c i s i o n w h i c h , i n t h e e v e n t o f i t s b e i n g u n a b l e t o a c h i e v e u n a n i m i t y , i s i s s u e d i n t h e f o r m o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , h a s a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t u p o n t h e p r o c e s s a n d outcome o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p r o c e e d i n g s w h i c h i s d y s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e g o a l o f a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two n o m i n e e s . ( I t i s assumed t h a t a l a c k o f u n a n i m i t y w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e B o a r d r e p o r t w i l l u s u a l l y a n d p r o b a b l y a l m o s t a l w a y s i n v o l v e d i s a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e u n i o n a n d t h e management n o m i n e e s , a n d i t i s assumed f u r t h e r t h a t B o a r d s a r e a l m o s t n e v e r i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f b e i n g u n a b l e t o a g r e e on a d e c i s i o n . ) I t i s t h e r e f o r e h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , 49 i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e two n o m i n e e s a r e u n w i l l i n g t o a g r e e . t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board, he a m a j o r i t y d e c i s i o n p l a c e s l i m i t a t i o n s u p o n t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e c h a i r m a n t o p u t p r e s s u r e u p o n t h e two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o a g r e e . The p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e n o m i n e e s t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n , where u n a n i m i t y i s n o t a c h i e v e d , h a s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f i s s u i n g a d e c i s i o n i n t h e f o r m o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r e a c h n o minee t o p u t p r e s s u r e u p o n t h e c h a i r m a n t o come t o one o r t h e o t h e r o f t h e i r o p p o s e d p o s i t i o n s . I t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n ' s a b i l i t y t o i n f l u e n c e e i t h e r o f t h e n o m i n e e s t o come n e a r e r t o h i s p o s i t i o n — w h i c h , i f he v i e w s t h e n a t u r e o f h i s t a s k a s b e i n g t o g e t them t o a g r e e on a c c o m m o d a t i v e g r o u n d s , we may assume t o be most f r e q u e n t l y a p o s i t i o n i n t e r m e d i a t e t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s , m e a n i n g o c c u p y i n g a p o s i t i o n a t some p o i n t b e t w e e n t h e s e p o s i t i o n s — i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ' s v i e w o f t h e r e l a t i v e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e c h a i r m a n ' s p o s i t i o n a n d t h e most t h a t t h e o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i s w i l l i n g t o c o n c e d e . Thus [ w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a r y c a s e n o t e d i n H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i i ) ] , t h e n a r r o w e r t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e c h a i r m a n ' s v i e w an d t h a t o f n o m i n e e x, o r t h e more p l a s t i c n ominee x i s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o h i s own p o s i t i o n — i n t h e s e n s e o f b e i n g w i l l i n g t o com-p r o m i s e b y m o v i n g i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e c h a i r m a n ' s p o s i t i o n — t h e g r e a t e r t h e c h a n c e o f t h e c h a i r m a n b e i n g a b l e t o i n f l u e n c e nominee y_, s i n c e we assume t h a t , u n l e s s he h a s had an adamant, uncompromising p o l i c y which he i s w i l l i n g to follow d i c t a t e d to him by h i s party, there i s a desire on the part of each nominee to gain support f o r h i s party by signing the majority report with the chairman. Thus, the chairman's a b i l i t y to b r i n g pressure to bear upon the nominees to change t h e i r p o s i t i o n s i s greater where these p o s i t i o n s are l e s s adamant and more p l a s t i c — t h a t i s , i n those disputes which would, i n t r i n s i c a l l y , o f f e r the greater p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n c i l i a t i o n being achieved—but i n those disputes where the nominees are strongly entrenched and u n w i l l i n g to compromise (that i s , i n disputes where an uncompromising maintenance of t h e i r opposed p o s i t i o n s out-weighs, f o r the p a r t i e s , and hence f o r the nominees, the d e s i r a b i l i t y of i n c l u s i o n i n the majority report, should i t be necessary to choose between them), disputes o f f e r i n g l e s s p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n c i l i a t i o n , h i s a b i l i t y to do so i s weak, and thus h i s a b i l i t y to e f f e c t c o n c i l i a t i o n i s weak. The consequence of t h i s i s that the chairman i s frequently forced to sign a majority report which favours one side or the other, rather than being able to issue one d i s t i n c t l y i d e n t i f i a b l e as h i s , which expresses h i s own d e c i s i o n , a d e c i s i o n which, f o r reasons already put forward, i s very . . 13 l i k e l y to take a more intermediate p o s i t i o n . 13 Several experienced c o n c i l i a t o r s have t o l d the author (although the Labour Relations Act states s p e c i f i c a l l y that the d e c i s i o n of a majority of the members of the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board s h a l l be the d e c i s i o n of the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board) that, 51 H y p o t h e s i s 4 - ( i i ) . I t i s f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , s h o u l d t h e c h a i r m a n v i e w h i s r o l e a s t h a t o f c o n c i l i a t o r b y n o r m a t i v e means, he w i l l (where t h e n o m i n e e s a r e adamant) be c a p a b l e o f e x e r t i n g e v e n l e s s p r e s s u r e t o w a r d a g r e e m e n t t h a n t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e l y c o n c i l i a t o r y c h a i r m a n ( f o r he w i l l s i m p l y be f o r c e d t o s i g n w i t h w h i c h e v e r p a r t y h a p p e n s t o be c l o s e r , i n h i s v i e w , t o t h e p o s i t i o n he f e e l s t h a t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , o r a j u s t s e t t l e m e n t — o r w h a t e v e r n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i o n he i s u s i n g — r e q u i r e s ) . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t where t h e n o m i n e e s a p p e a r t o be adamant, t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m a n h a s some c h a n c e o f m o v i n g them t o g e t h e r , t h r o u g h t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h e w e l f a r e p f t h e i r p a r t i e s , b e c a u s e he w i l l be l i k e l y t o a d v o c a t e a p o s i t i o n a p p r o x i m a t e l y midway b e t w e e n t h e p o s i t i o n s h e l d b y t h e n o m i n e e s , f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h i s i s t h e one t h a t i s m o s t l i k e l y t o p r o d u c e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s a n d a n i m p r e s s i o n o n t h e i r p a r t o f h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y . A n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i s , f o r r e a s o n s s h o u l d no two members o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d be a b l e t o a g r e e on t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t h a t w i l l c o n s t i t u t e t h e r e p o r t a n d d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d , e a c h may s u b m i t a s e p a r a t e r e p o r t . T h e y a d d e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r d i d n o t a p p r o v e o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e b e c a u s e i t w o u l d a l m o s t i n v a r i a b l y mean t h a t a n y o r a l l o f t h e t h r e e r e p o r t s w h i c h m i g h t be s u b m i t t e d b y t h e M i n i s t e r f o r a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o n b y t h e p a r t i e s w o u l d be r e j e c t e d b y a t l e a s t one o f t h e p a r t i e s , a n d , i n t h e c a s e o f t h e c h a i r m a n ' s r e p o r t — t h i s b e i n g t h e one w h i c h w o u l d be most l i k e l y t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e p a r t i e s a s t h e r e p o r t o f t h e B o a r d — r e j e c t i o n b y b o t h p a r t i e s w o u l d be v i r t u a l l y c e r t a i n , a s n e i t h e r o f t h e n o m i n e e s h a d f e l t h i m s e l f a b l e t o a p p r o v e t h i s r e p o r t b y s i g n i n g i t w i t h t h e c h a i r m a n . a l r e a d y p u t f o r w a r d , f a r more l i k e l y t o be v i e w e d b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s a s b i a s e d , t h u s p r e c l u d i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s . The p r o b a b l e r e s u l t o f n o r m a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n where n o m i n e e s a r e adamant i s , t h e n , t h a t t h e adamancy o f one n o m i nee w i l l be i n t e n s i f i e d b y what he p e r c e i v e s as t h e c h a i r m a n ' s b i a s , w h i c h w i l l , t h e n , p r e c l u d e t h e two n o m i n e e s s h i f t i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n s c l o s e r t o a g r e e m e n t ( b e c a u s e what one n o m i nee r e g a r d s a s t h e n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n ' s b i a s a g a i n s t h i m w i l l c e r t a i n l y p r e c l u d e , u n d e r t h e c i r c u m -s t a n c e s o u t l i n e d , h i s c o m p r o m i s i n g i n a n y way, a n d t h e n o m i n e e s u p p o r t e d b y t h e n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n w i l l be u n l i k e l y t o c o m p r o m i s e w i t h o u t e x t r a c t i n g c o u n t e r b a l a n c i n g c o n c e s s i o n s f r o m t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e , b e c a u s e , i t w i l l be remembered, t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e o r i g i n a l adamancy o f t h e n o m i n e e s was a d e s i r e , s t r o n g e r t h a n t h e d e s i r e t o be i n on a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , t o m a i n t a i n t h e b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n o f e a c h p a r t y r e l a t i v e t o t h a t o f t h e o t h e r ) , and w i l l s i m p l y f o r c e t h e c h a i r m a n t o s i g n w i t h t h e n o m i nee c l o s e r t o t h e p o s i t i o n r e q u i r e d b y w h a t e v e r n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a he i s u s i n g — t h a t i s , w i t h t h e nominee r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a r t y w h i c h t h e c h a i r m a n b e l i e v e s t o be more i n t h e r i g h t . H y p o t h e s i s F i v e I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o r d e c i s i o n s o f a n o t h e r o r o t h e r C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s w i l l i n f l u e n c e t h e d e c i s i o n o f a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d w h i c h i s i n s e s s i o n i n t h e 53 d i r e c t i o n o f i t s being; s i m i l a r t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n a n d one o r b o t h o f t h e n o m i n e e s c o n c e r n e d p e r c e i v e t h e two d i s p u t e s t o be c o m p a r a b l e . I t i s assumed, i n o t h e r w o r d s , t h a t c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t p a t t e r n s w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r v a r i o u s t r a d e s a n d i n d u s t r i e s b y C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , when a c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t d i s p u t e a r i s e s i n t h e s e t r a d e s o r i n d u s t r i e s , o r i n t r a d e s o r i n d u s t r i e s r e g a r d e d a s c o m p a r a b l e , t h e r e p o r t o f t h e B o a r d a t t e m p t i n g t o c o n c i l i a t e t h i s d i s p u t e w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e e s t a b l i s h e d p a t t e r n i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e p a t t e r n . H y p o t h e s i s S i x I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t w i l l be more l i k e l y t o be a c c e p t e d b y b o t h o f t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s t h a n w i l l a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , w h i c h i s l i k e l y t o be r e j e c t e d b y t h e m i n o r i t y p a r t y . T h i s i s assumed t o be so f o r t h r e e r e a s o n s . The f i r s t i s t h a t , p r e s u m a b l y , i f t h e p a r t y r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e nominee who s u b m i t s t h e m i n o r i t y r e p o r t h a d f e l t t h e m s e l v e s t o be i n a p o s i t i o n where t h e y c o u l d a g r e e w i t h t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s p u t f o r w a r d b y t h e c h a i r m a n and t h e nominee r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e o t h e r p a r t y t o t h e d i s p u t e , t h e n t h e r e p o r t o f t h e B o a r d w o u l d h a v e b e e n u n a n i m o u s . I t i s assumed ( f o r r e a s o n s m e n t i o n e d above i n H y p o t h e s i s - g r o u p F o u r ) t h a t when t h e two n o m i n e e s a r e u n a b l e t o come t o a g r e e m e n t on t h e i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e , t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l f r e q u e n t l y he f o r c e d t o s i g n a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t t h a t w i l l f a v o u r t h e p a r t y o f t h e nominee who s i g n s t h e r e p o r t w i t h h i m , a n d t h a t w i l l h e n c e he l i k e l y t o he u n a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e p a r t y o f t h e n o m i nee who s u b m i t t e d t h e m i n o r i t y r e p o r t . The s e c o n d i s t h a t i t i s assumed t h a t , a s i n t h e c a s e o f a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f e a c h o f t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s h a v e b e e n a b l e , i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s , t o f i n d a m u t u a l l y - s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n t o e a c h o f t h e i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e , i t i s e x t r e m e l y p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w i l l a g r e e t o t h e u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t . The t h i r d i s t h a t a p a r t y t h a t r e j e c t e d a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t w o u l d , i t i s f e l t , weaken i t s b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n b y a p p e a r i n g u n r e a s o n a b l y i n t r a n -s i g e n t , a n d t h i s f a c t o r , a d d e d t o t h a t m e n t i o n e d above o f t h e p r o b a b l e a c c e p t a b i l i t y , o w i n g t o t h e i r g e n e s i s , o f t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , i s assumed t o p r o d u c e i n t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s , a c c e p t a n c e o f a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t b y b o t h p a r t i e s . I I . R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e H y p o t h e s e s i n t o a More U n i f i e d A n a l y t i c C o n c e p t i o n I t was f e l t t h a t t h e f o r e g o i n g h y p o t h e s e s c o u l d be s y n t h e s i z e d i n t o a more u n i f i e d a n a l y t i c c o n c e p t i o n b y — i n a d d i t i o n t o r e g a r d i n g them a l l as c o n c e r n e d w i t h f a c t o r s e x e r c i s i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e u p o n t h e p r o c e s s an d outcome o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l — c a t e g o r i z i n g them i n t e r m s o f t h e s o u r c e o f t h e f a c t o r . T h r e e c a t e g o r i e s a r e e n v i s a g e d . A. E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s . T h e s e c o n s i s t o f f a c t o r s h y p o t h e s i z e d t o i n f l u e n c e t h e r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n s a n d i n t e r -a c t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l ( a p a r t f r o m t h a t c l a s s o f f a c t o r s c i t e d i n c a t e g o r y C b e l o w ) t h a t o r i g i n a t e , a n d o p e r a t e f r o m , o u t s i d e t h e g r o u p (\"the g r o u p \" b e i n g t h e t h r e e - m a n C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d ) , i n c l u d i n g t h e l e g a l , o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s p e r t a i n i n g t o C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . B. I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s . T h e s e c o n s i s t o f f a c t o r s , h y p o t h e s i z e d t o i n f l u e n c e t h e r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n s a n d i n t e r -a c t i o n o f B o a r d p e r s o n n e l , t h a t o r i g i n a t e w i t h i n t h e g r o u p and o p e r a t e f r o m i n s i d e i t , a n d t h a t a r e d i s t i n c t f r o m t h a t c l a s s o f f a c t o r s c i t e d i n c a t e g o r y C b e l o w i n t h a t t h e a u t h o r i s u n a b l e t o h y p o t h e s i z e t h e i r o r i g i n i n a n y s p e c i f i c r o l e o r r o l e s a p a r t f r o m t h e r o l e , c u r r e n t l y o c c u p i e d b y t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s a p a r t i c u l a r C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d member. I t i s o b v i o u s , h o w e v e r , t h a t , a s some o f t h e b e h a v i o u r t r e a t e d i n t h e s e f a c t o r s — s u c h a s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e n o r m a t i v e a n d a c c o m m o d a t i v e r o l e s o f t h e c h a i r m a n — w i l l s p r i n g i n l a r g e measure f r o m p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s b r o u g h t t o t h e B o a r d , i t c a n n o t , t h e r e f o r e , s t r i c t l y be r e g a r d e d a s o r i g i n a t i n g \" w i t h i n t h e g r o u p . \" However, as a n y p r e d i s -p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e f a c t o r s a r e t o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m \" e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s \" i n t h a t t h e y o p e r a t e f r o m , and a r e 56 brought to the group by, the i n d i v i d u a l Board member, and are to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from \" o t h e r - r o l e f a c t o r s \" i n t h a t they cannot be t i e d t o any s p e c i f i c r o l e other than t h a t c u r r e n t l y occupied by each i n d i v i d u a l i n h i s c a p a c i t y as a p a r t i c u l a r C o n c i l i a t i o n Board member, i t seems expedient to subsume such f a c t o r s under the r u b r i c of \" i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s \" . C. Ot h e r - r o l e F a c t o r s . These c o n s i s t of r o l e - \" conceptions or other f a c t o r s r e l e v a n t to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s behaviour t h a t o r i g i n a t e i n r o l e s (other than h i s c u r r e n t r o l e as a p a r t i c u l a r member of the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board) which the i n d i v i d u a l occupies or has occupied, and which, i t i s hypo t h e s i z e d , are manifested i n the r o l e - c o n c e p t i o n s and behaviour of the i n d i v i d u a l C o n c i l i a t i o n Board member. A. E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s 1. P u b l i c Opinion a) The e f f e c t on the nominees of a n t i c i p a t i o n of i t s support f o r the r e p o r t of the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board [Hypothesis 2 ( v ) ] . b) S i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n t i a l as, .in the case of the employer who s e l l s goods or s e r v i c e s d i r e c t l y to the p u b l i c , a response to the inconvenience of a s t r i k e or lo c k o u t [Hypothesis 2 ( v i ) ( a ) ] ; s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n t i a l as a source of p o t e n t i a l r e s t r i c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n [Hypothesis 2 ( v i ) ( b ) ] . c) , In r e l a t i o n to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the n o r m a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d c h a i r m a n [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i i ) ] . d) I t s e f f e c t on t h e c h a i r m a n ' s r o l e -p e r c e p t i o n [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i i i ) ] . e ) I t s e f f e c t o n nominee r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e a v o i d a n c e o f e x a g g e r a t e d p o s i t i o n s [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i x ) ] . B a r g a i n i n g Power a) The e f f e c t o f p a r t y b a r g a i n i n g - p o w e r on nominee r o l e - p r e f e r e n c e w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c h a i r m a n [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i ) ] . b ) The e f f e c t o f t h e r e l a t i v e b a r g a i n i n g power o f t h e p a r t i e s on t h e b e h a v i o u r o f a n a c c o m m o d a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d c h a i r m a n where a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t i s n o t m a t e r i a l i z i n g [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i i ) ] . The e f f e c t o f a h i s t o r y o f h o s t i l e b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s ( i n a n i n d u s t r y v u l n e r a b l e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n ) o n t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e c h a i r m a n [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x ) ] . Nominee p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e p r e s s , a n d i t s i n f l u e n c e on t h e i r b e h a v i o u r [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i i ) ] . The e f f e c t o f c ommunity s i z e o n nominee r o l e -p e r c e p t i o n s [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i i i ) ] . 58 6. The e f f e c t o f t h e t o n e o f p a s t b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s on t h e t y p e o f n o m inee c h o s e n [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i v ) ] . 7. Use b y t h e c h a i r m a n o f t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e p a r t i e s a s a l e v e r t o a g r e e m e n t [ H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i ) ] . 8. H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) s t a t e s t h a t f a c t o r s ( a ) , ( b ) , and ( c ) ( c i t e d i n i t ) a r e t h e d e c i s i v e o n e s d e t e r m i n i n g t h e outcome o f t h e c h a i r m a n ' s e f f o r t s t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e two n o m i n e e s . As f a c t o r s ( a ) a n d ( c ) b e l o n g i n t h e \" E x t e r n a l \" c a t e g o r y , a n d f a c t o r ( b ) i n t h e \" I n t e r n a l \" c a t e g o r y , H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) i t s e l f i s c l a s s i f i a b l e i n i t s e n t i r e t y i n n e i t h e r o f t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s . F a c t o r s ( a ) a n d ( c ) a r e g i v e n b e l o w ; f a c t o r ( b ) i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e \" I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s \" c a t e g o r y w h i c h f o l l o w s t h e p r e s e n t s e c t i o n . a) The l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f p a r t y - n o m i n a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e g o a l o f a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s i n t h a t i t r e s u l t s i n i n t e r - p a r t y c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p o s i t i o n of- e a c h [ H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) ( a ) ] . c ) The l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f p a r t y - n o m i n a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i s d y s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e g o a l o f n o m i n e e s r e a c h i n g o r a p p r o a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t i n t h a t i t i n t r o d u c e s t h e f a c t o r o f p a r t i s a n s h i p [ H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) ( c ) ] . 9. The e f f e c t o f n ominee p a r t i s a n s h i p o n h i s q u e s t i o n i n g - t e c h n i q u e [ H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i i ) ] . 1 0. The e f f e c t o f t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f p a r t y -a p p o i n t e d n o m i n e e s on nominee r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n [ H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i i i ) ] • 1 1 . P a r t y e v a l u a t i o n o f nominee p e r f o r m a n c e i n t e r m s o f t h e f a c t o r s d e s c r i b e d i n H y p o t h e s e s 3 ( i ) ( a ) a n d 3 ( i ) ( c ) a b o v e , and t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s e v a l u a t i o n o n nominee b e h a v i o u r [ H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i v ) ] . 12. The e f f e c t o f t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t o n t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m a n t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s [ H y p o t h e s i s 4 ( i ) ] . 13. The e f f e c t o f t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t on t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s [ H y p o t h e s i s 4 ( i i ) ] . 14. The e f f e c t o f d e c i s i o n s o f o t h e r C o n c i l i a t i o n 60 Boards on the role-conceptions, behaviour, and deci s i o n of the personnel of an operating C o n c i l i a t i o n Board [Hypothesis F i v e ] . 15. Hypothesis S i x proposes that there i s a greater l i k e l i h o o d that a unanimous report w i l l be accepted by both p a r t i e s than w i l l a majority report, which i s l i k e l y to be rejected by the party whose nominee submitted a minority report; i t i s assumed that t h i s w i l l operate as a pressure upon the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board personnel to agree upon a unanimous report, because, presumably, they consider the most desirable f u l f i l m e n t of t h e i r r o l e s as being to produce a report s a t i s f a c t o r y t o , and hence accepted by, both p a r t i e s , and a -unanimous report usually stands the best chance of being so. Internal Factors 1. The existence of the normative and the accommodative ro l e s of the chairman [Hypothesis 2 ( i ) ] . 2. The e f f e c t of the normatively-oriented chairman on the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of the two nominees [Hypothesis 2 ( i i ) ] . 61 3» The e f f e c t of the support of the normatively-oriented chairman on the r e l a t i v e intransigence of a nominee when he has been given l i t t l e bargaining room by h i s party, as opposed to when he has been given a good deal of bargaining room by h i s party [Hypothesis 2 ( i i i ) ] . 4. The r e l a t i v e i n a b i l i t y of the normatively-oriented chairman to achieve agreement between the nominees [Hypothesis 2 ( i v ) ] . 5. The use of normative c r i t e r i a by accommodatively-oriented chairmen [Hypothesis 2(xv)]. 6. The e f f e c t of the s u s c e p t i b i l i t y of the chairman to the behaviour of nominee A on the behaviour of nominee B [Hypothesis 2 ( x v i ) ] . 7. The tendency f o r the chairman, i n the event that unanimity i s not achieved, to sign more frequently with the employer nominee [Hypothesis 2 ( x i x ) ] . 8. The chairman's p r o v i s i o n to the nominees of avenues of r e t r e a t to p o s i t i o n s c l o s e r to agreement [Hypothesis 3 ( i ) ( b ) ] . 9 . The d i r e c t i o n of nominee independence of party desires [Hypothesis 3 ( v ) ] . 62 10. The e f f e c t o f n o m inee i n d e p e n d e n c e o f p a r t y -d e s i r e s u p o n t h e c h a i r m a n a n d u p o n t h e o t h e r n ominee [ H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( v i ) ] . C. O t h e r - r o l e F a c t o r s 1. The e f f e c t o f t h e a c a d e m i c o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e u p o n t h e i m p a r t i a l i t y o f t h e c h a i r m a n [ H y p o t h e s i s l ( i ) ] . 2. The a n t i - u n i o n b i a s o f r e t i r e d p e r s o n s who s e r v e o n C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s [ H y p o t h e s i s l ( i i ) ] . 3 . The e f f e c t u p o n t h e i m p a r t i a l i t y o f l a w y e r -c h a i r m e n o f t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f l a w y e r s w i t h t h e p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c v a l u e s o f e m p l o y e r s [ H y p o t h e s i s l ( i i i ) ] . 4. The e f f e c t o f t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e o f t h e l a w y e r u p o n t h e a b i l i t y o f a l a w y e r - n o m i n e e t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r n o m inee [ H y p o t h e s i s l ( i v ) ] . 5. The e f f e c t o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e a s a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m a n o n a c h a i r m a n ' s a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s [ H y p o t h e s i s l ( v ) ] . 6. The e f f e c t o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e a s a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d n o m i n e e o n a n o m i n e e ' s a b i l i t y to reach, agreement with the other nominee [Hypothesis l ( v i ) j . 7. The e f f e c t of previous experience as a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board nominee on a nominee's a b i l i t y to sign a Board report that i s to h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n [Hypothesis l ( v i i ) ] . 8. The e f f e c t of a chairman's f a m i l i a r i t y with the trade or industry involved i n the dispute (gained, presumably, as a r e s u l t of h i s involvement i n some ro l e other than that of chairman of an operating C o n c i l i a t i o n Board) upon h i s a b i l i t y to achieve agreement between the two nominees [Hypothesis l ( v i i i ) ] . 9 . The e f f e c t of a nominee's f a m i l i a r i t y with the trade or industry involved i n the dispute (gained, presumably, as a r e s u l t of h i s involvement i n some ro l e other than that of a nominee on an operating C o n c i l i a t i o n Board) upon h i s a b i l i t y to protect the i n t e r e s t s and welfare of h i s party [Hypothesis l ( i x ) ] . 10. The e f f e c t of the membership of a chairman and a nominee i n the same occupational and s o c i a l c lass upon the speed with which they are able to reach agreement [Hypothesis l ( x ) ] . 1 1 . The e f f e c t o f t h e membership o f a c h a i r m a n a n d a nominee i n t h e same o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s u p o n t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e i r i s s u i n g , s h o u l d u n a n i m i t y n o t be a c h i e v e d , t h e m a j o r i t y r e p o r t [ H y p o t h e s i s l ( x i ) ] . CHAPTER I I I THE TESTING OP THE HYPOTHESES I . The T e s t i n g T e c h n i q u e and t h e R a t i o n a l e f o r i t s S e l e c t i o n The t e s t i n g t e c h n i q u e w i t h t h e s t r o n g e s t i n i t i a l a p p e a l f o r t h e a u t h o r was t h a t o f t h e s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e ; q u e s t i o n s w o u l d he d e s i g n e d a s t e s t s o f e a c h h y p o t h e s i s , t h e s e w o u l d he a d m i n i s t e r e d t o e a c h s u b j e c t v e r b a l l y , a n d h i s r e s p o n s e s r e c o r d e d . The s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e was r e g a r d e d i n i t i a l l y a s t h e i d e a l i n s t r u m e n t f o r t e s t i n g t h e f o r e g o i n g h y p o t h e s e s b e c a u s e i t was f e l t t h a t i t p o s s e s s e d t h r e e a d v a n t a g e s : e n g e n d e r i n g , t h r o u g h p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t , t h e r a p p o r t i m p o s s i b l e i n m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , i t h e n c e , f i r s t l y , was l i k e l y t o r e d u c e t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e f u s a l s i n t h e s a m p l e , a s w e l l a s , s e c o n d l y , t o p r o m p t a \" r i c h e r \" r e s p o n s e t h a n c o u l d g e n e r a l l y be e x p e c t e d f r o m a m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a n d , t h i r d l y , i t w o u l d y i e l d , t h r o u g h i t s s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n , s t r i c t l y c o m p a r a b l e d a t a i m p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n f r o m \" o p e n - e n d e d \" i n t e r v i e w s , w h i c h d e v e l o p i n a d i s c u r s i v e a n d r e l a t i v e l y u n p r e m e d i t a t e d manner. An i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e was d e v e l o p e d , a n d a d m i n i s t e r e d t o f i v e p e r s o n s who h a d s e r v e d n u m e r o u s t i m e s o n C o n c i l i a t i o n 65 66 J B o a r d s . T h i s was a n e x p l o r a t o r y v e n t u r e d e s i g n e d t o t e s t , on a v e r y c r u d e a n d g e n e r a l b u t , i t was h o p e d , i n f o r m a t i v e l e v e l , t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e k i n d o f r e a s o n i n g a n d a n a l y s i s w h i c h u n d e r l a y t h e h y p o t h e s e s , a s w e l l as t o a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e , i n a r a t h e r r u d i m e n t a r y f a s h i o n , t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e c o m p l e t e l y p r e d e t e r m i n e d i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e a s a n i n s t r u m e n t f o r t e s t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s e s . I t became q u i c k l y a p p a r e n t t h a t i t was an i n s t r u m e n t u n s u i t e d t o i t s t a s k ; i n d e e d , i t p o s s e s s e d two d e f e c t s s u f f i c i e n t l y s e r i o u s t o p r e c l u d e i t s u s e . The f i r s t was t h a t t h e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d o f e a c h r e s p o n d e n t i n o r d e r t h a t a p p r o x i -m a t e l y f o r t y h y p o t h e s e s be a d e q u a t e l y t e s t e d was so c o n s i d e r -a b l e t h a t , f o r e x a m p l e , e i g h t h o u r s was r e q u i r e d t o go t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e w i t h t h e one r e s p o n d e n t w i t h whom t h e a u t h o r c o m p l e t e d i t , a n d t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o a d m i n i s t e r p o r t i o n s o f i t t o t h e f o u r o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t s u s e d a t t h i s s t a g e o f t h e r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e d t h a t ' a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same amount o f t i m e w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n a c o m p l e t e r e s p o n s e t o t h e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e f r o m them. The s e c o n d d e f e c t was t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s showed i n a l l c a s e s a t e n d e n c y t o a n s w e r s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s i n a d i s c u r s i v e , a n e c d o t a l manner w h i c h f r e q u e n t l y d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d e s i r e d . T h i s t e n d e n c y was, o f c o u r s e , r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e s c h e d u l e , b u t i t was o b v i o u s l y i m p o s s i b l e e v e n t o a t t e m p t t o c o r r e c t i t w i t h o u t t h e . l o s s o f t h e r a p p o r t e s s e n t i a l t o f r u i t f u l i n t e r v i e w i n g o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r t y p e i n v o l v e d . I n a d d i t i o n t o d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e s e d e f e c t s i n t h e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e . a s a r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t , t h e e x p l o r a t o r y i n t e r -v i e w s i n d i c a t e d t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e r e v i s i o n o f a number o f h y p o t h e s e s , t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f some, a n d t h e a d d i t i o n o f o t h e r s . Hence a d i f f e r e n t m e t h o d o f t e s t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s e s o b v i o u s l y h a d t o be f o u n d . A q u e s t i o n n a i r e a p p e a r e d t o be t h e o n l y p r a c t i c a b l e m e t h o d o f o b t a i n i n g s t a n d a r d i z e d , c o m p a r a b l e d a t a f o r a l a r g e number o f h y p o t h e s e s f r o m r e s p o n d e n t s who were, i t was a ssumed, e x t r e m e l y b u s y a n d u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e a n i n t e r v i e w e r , e x c e p t p e r h a p s o v e r a p r o h i b i t i v e l y l o n g p e r i o d o f many weeks, w i t h t h e s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f t i m e t h a t w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o c o n v e y t h e d e s i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n . A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t h e r e f o r e d e s i g n e d , a n d r e v i s e d s e v e r a l t i m e s u n t i l i t seemed r e l a t i v e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y I t was t h e n s u b m i t t e d , a s a p r e - t e s t , t o two p e r s o n s who h a d s e r v e d on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , and t o a t h i r d , a C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r who h a d n e v e r h i m s e l f s e r v e d o n a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d b u t who h a d a v e r y e x t e n s i v e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e B o a r d s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s p r e - t e s t p r o m p t e d t h e f u r t h e r r e v i s i o n o f some h y p o t h e s e s , a n d t h e a d d i t i o n o f some, as w e l l a s t h e r e v i s i o n o f a number o f q u e s t i o n s w h i c h were ambiguous o r i n a d e q u a t e i n o t h e r r e s p e c t When c o m p l e t e d , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was f o r t y - f o u r p a g e s i n l e n g t h a n d c o n s i s t e d o f one h u n d r e d s i x t e e n q u e s t i o n s , s e v e r a l of them m u l t i p l e . I t was evident t h a t such a document would i n v o l v e s u f f i c i e n t work as to r e s u l t , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , i n a s u b s t a n t i a l sample l o s s from uncompleted q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . However, the o n l y way i n which i t c o u l d be shortened was t o abandon a l a r g e number of the c h e r i s h e d hypotheses; t h i s the author was u n w i l l i n g t o do, d e c i d i n g r a t h e r to gamble upon being able to persuade a s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n 14 of the sample, t o complete i t as t o provide an adequate t e s t . I t was hoped t h a t l e a v i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h respondents f o r s e v e r a l weeks would enable them—busy as they were and l o n g as the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s — t o complete i t by working at i t - i n a piecemeal f a s h i o n , a few questions at a time. 14 The sense i n which the q u e s t i o n n a i r e \" t e s t e d \" the hypotheses r e q u i r e s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n the p e j o r a t i v e d i r e c t i o n , as d i d the meaning of the term \"hypothesis\" before i t . As w i l l be r e c a l l e d , i t was decided t h a t e x p l o r a t o r y study on a broad f r o n t was t o be p r e f e r r e d t o study i n depth i n a few areas, i n order t h a t as much as p o s s i b l e of i n t e r e s t and s i g n i f i c a n c e be uncovered or suggested. What the • q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n e f f e c t d i d was to ask a number of persons who had had experience on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards whether or not the hypotheses made sense, or h e l d t r u e , i n the l i g h t of t h e i r own experience. This i s , of course, i n comparison w i t h more o b j e c t i v e and experimental techniques, a r a t h e r rudimentary way of t e s t i n g hypotheses, f o r i t d e a l s e n t i r e l y i n impressions or c o n c e p t i o n s — i n what people t h i n k i s the case. I t i s , i n the author's o p i n i o n , p e r f e c t l y a p p r o p r i a t e to an e x p l o r a t o r y study such as the present one, but the reader i s cautioned t h a t , w h i l e the data which i t p r o v i d e d are i n f o r m a t i v e and s u g g e s t i v e , they cannot be regarded as c o n s t i t u t i n g a r e l i a b l e o b j e c t i v e t e s t of the v a l i d i t y of the f o r e g o i n g hypotheses. Therefore g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s may be made, and c o n c l u s i o n s reached, onl y w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e c a u t i o n and t e n t a t i v e n e s s . A more r i g o r o u s t e s t i n g technique would be e s s e n t i a l . t o e s t a b l i s h i n g them w i t h any c e r t a i n t y . 69 A number o f o t h e r s t r a t e g e m s were a d o p t e d t o a t t e m p t t o m i n i m i z e t h e a n t i c i p a t e d sample l o s s . E v e r y i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e sample was t e l e p h o n e d p e r s o n a l l y and a d d r e s s e d a s f o l l o w s : My name i s I a n C u r r i e , Mr. . I'm a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y , and I'm d o i n g a n M.A. t h e s i s on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . I was d i s c u s s i n g them w i t h Mr. F r a s e r 1 - ? a t t h e B. C. D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o u r , a n d he s u g g e s t e d t h a t i f I were t o g e t i n t o u c h w i t h y o u , t h a t y o u m i g h t be w i l l i n g t o d i s c u s s y o u r e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e B o a r d s w i t h me. E v e r y member o f t h e sample c o n t a c t e d b y phone t h e n a g r e e d t o d i s c u s s t h e B o a r d s w i t h me, b u t t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y went o n t o s a y e i t h e r t h a t t h e y were c o m p l e t e l y t i e d up a t p r e s e n t , a n d w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o g i v e me a n a p p o i n t m e n t u n t i l s e v e r a l d a y s o r e v e n weeks h e n c e , o r t h a t t h e y were e n t i r e l y p l e a s e d a n d w i l l i n g t o d i s c u s s t h e B o a r d s w i t h me, b u t were s o b u s y t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t a t p r e s e n t g i v e me a n a p p o i n t m e n t . I c o n t i n u e d : W e l l , I h a d assumed t h a t y o u ' d be p r e t t y b u s y , so t o make i t a s c o n v e n i e n t f o r y o u as I c a n I' v e s i m p l y w r i t t e n down a l l o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t I ' d l i k e y o u r comments a n d o p i n i o n s o n, an d i f I c o u l d j u s t d r o p t h a t o f f a t y o u r o f f i c e f o r y o u , I c o u l d j u s t l e a v e . i t w i t h y o u , a n d y o u c o u l d l o o k i t o v e r a t y o u r c o n v e n i e n c e and do i t b i t b y b i t w h e n e v e r y o u h a p p e n t o h a v e t h e t i m e . 15 Mr. W i l l i a m F r a s e r i s t h e C h i e f C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r a t t h e V a n c o u v e r o f f i c e o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B r a n c h o f t h e B. C. D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o u r . P u r e l y i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c e v i d e n c e s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t he i s a man h i g h l y r e s p e c t e d b y b o t h l a b o u r a n d management i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a f o r h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c e . Every member of the sample contacted agreed to this.. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e , w i t h the name of the respondent on i t on a detachable t a g , as w e l l as the name, address, and telephone number of the author, along w i t h a statement i d e n t i f y i n g the document as being i n connection w i t h a t h e s i s on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, was then d e l i v e r e d p e r s o n a l l y to the home or o f f i c e of each respondent. A f t e r a respondent had had the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n f o r approximately two weeks, he was telephoned, and, i f he had not completed i t , was asked to suggest a date on which the author might again check w i t h him. Many respondents were telephoned f o u r or more times i n t h i s f a s h i o n . When q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were completed they were, i f p o s s i b l e , p i c k e d up p e r s o n a l l y . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d between J u l y 14th and J u l y 26th, and on August 22nd, a p e r s o n a l l e t t e r was w r i t t e n to each of the respondents who had not by t h a t date com-p l e t e d t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , u r g i n g them to t r y t o complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e by August 3 1 s t , as a f t e r t h a t date i t would not be p o s s i b l e to use i t f o r the t h e s i s . Thus, at every stage of the process of d i s t r i b u t i n g and c o l l e c t i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , an attempt was made to maximize p e r s o n a l contact w i t h respondents, i n an e f f o r t to reduce the sample l o s s which, i t was assumed, would be occasioned by the l e n g t h and complexity of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I I . The Sample The sample was drawn f r o m a f i l e i n t h e V a n c o u v e r o f f i c e o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B r a n c h o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m h i a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o u r . T h i s f i l e r e c o r d e d t h e names, a d d r e s s e s , a n d p o s i t i o n on t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d ( t h a t i s , u n i o n n o m i n e e , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e , o r c h a i r m a n ) o f a l l p e r s o n n e l who h a d s e r v e d on a l l o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s c o n s t i t u t e d i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a b e t w e e n J a n u a r y o f 1 9 5 9 a n d June o f I960; t h e f i l e was n o t m a i n t a i n e d f a r t h e r b a c k t h a n one y e a r p r i o r t o t h e c u r r e n t y e a r b e c a u s e t h e V a n c o u v e r o f f i c e i s m e r e l y a b r a n c h o f f i c e , a n d a c o m p l e t e f i l e e x i s t s a t t h e h e a d o f f i c e i n V i c t o r i a . The names o f a l l o f t h e s e p e r s o n s who r e s i d e d i n t h e G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r a r e a c o n s t i t u t e d t h e s a m p l e . Two C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r s a n d two e x p e r i e n c e d C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d members a s s u r e d t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r t h a t t h i s sample i n c l u d e d t h e names o f v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e e x p e r i e n c e d c o n c i l i a t o r s who h a d s e r v e d on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i n r e c e n t y e a r s , a n d t h e y augmented t h i s l i s t w i t h a f e w s u p p l e m e n t a r y names. The sample c o n s i s t e d o f one h u n d r e d t h i r t e e n p e r s o n s . Of t h e s e , i t p r o v e d i m p o s s i b l e t o c o n t a c t f o u r t e e n d u r i n g t h e two-week p e r i o d i n w h i c h a t t e m p t s were made t o do s o , a b s e n c e f r o m t h e c i t y a s t h e r e s u l t o f v a c a t i o n s b e i n g t h e p r i n c i p a l r e a s o n ; one s t a t e d t h a t he h a d s e r v e d o n l y o n A r b i t r a t i o n B o a r d s a n d t h a t t h e r e c o r d s , i n i n c l u d i n g h i s name, were t h e r e f o r e i n e r r o r ; and seven s t a t e d t h a t they would he q u i t e w i l l i n g to d i s c u s s C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards w i t h the author, but t h a t , as they had served on only one Board, they doubted whether such l i m i t e d experience c o u l d r e s u l t i n i n f o r m a t i o n l i k e l y to prove u s e f u l , and f o r t h i s reason i t was decided not to ask them to serve as respondents This meant t h a t , of the o r i g i n a l one hundred t h i r t e e n p o t e n t i a l respondents, twenty-two were t o be dispensed w i t h , l e a v i n g a t o t a l of ninety-one persons to whom q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were a c t u a l l y d e l i v e r e d . These ninety-one accounted f o r themselves i n the f o l l o w i n g way: two r e t u r n e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e incomplete on the grounds t h a t they were too busy t o complete i t ; one had never served on a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board, but o n l y on A r b i t r a t i o n Boards; two r e t u r n e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e incomplete, without e x p l a n a t i o n ; f o u r s t a t e d t h a t they were too busy t o complete i t , and d i d not r e t u r n i t ; one d i e d before he had completed i t ; t h r e e , a f t e r examining the q u e s t i o n s , concluded t h a t t h e i r experience was i n s u f f i c i e n t to permit them to answer the questions (two had served on two Boards each, and the t h i r d on one Board); one had served o n l y on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards d e a l i n g w i t h d i s p u t e s i n v o l v i n g policemen and firemen, and, as the d e c i s i o n s of these Boards are l e g a l l y b i n d i n g (and t h e r e f o r e experience on them i s not comparable to experience on standard C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards), he f e l t , q u i t e c o r r e c t l y , t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h which he c o u l d supply me c o u l d not be 73 p e r t i n e n t t o my c o n c e r n s ; t w e n t y - n i n e s t a t e d , t h e l a s t t i m e t h a t t h e y were c o n t a c t e d b y t e l e p h o n e p r i o r t o A u g u s t 3 1 s t , e i t h e r t h a t t h e y h a d b e g u n i t a n d were i n t h e p r o c e s s o f a t t e m p t i n g t o c o m p l e t e i t a s r a p i d l y a s t h e i r f r e e t i m e w o u l d p e r m i t , o r t h a t t h e y w o u l d a t t e m p t t o b e g i n a n d c o m p l e t e i t a s s o o n as p o s s i b l e , b u t h a d n o t , b y A u g u s t 3 1 s t , a r r a n g e d f o r i t t o r e a c h me; and f o r t y - e i g h t were r e t u r n e d t o me c o m p l e t e d . The f o r e g o i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a p p e a r s i n T a b l e I a n d T a b l e I I b e l o w . TABLE I P o t e n t i a l Sample 113 No C o n t a c t 14 N e v e r s e r v e d on a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d 1 S e r v e d on o n l y one C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d 7 T o t a l L o s s f r o m P o t e n t i a l Sample 22 16 T h e s e e n t r i e s mean t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l s a m ple was a c t u a l l y one h u n d r e d t e n , r a t h e r t h a n one h u n d r e d t h i r t e e n p e r s o n s , a s t h e y do n o t b e l o n g i n i t . 74 TABLE I I T o t a l D i s t r i b u t e d 91 (113 m i n u s 22) R e t u r n e d i n c o m p l e t e ; t o o b u s y t o c o m p l e t e i t l 9 2 N e v e r s e r v e d on a C o n c i l i a t i o n Boardl7 1 R e t u r n e d i n c o m p l e t e ; no e x p l a n a t i o n ^ O 2 U n r e t u r n e d ; t o o b u s y t o c o m p l e t e i t 4 D i e d b e f o r e c o m p l e t i n g i t 1 I n s u f f i c i e n t e x p e r i e n c e t o c o m p l e t e i t 2 1 • 3 S e r v e d o n l y on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s t h e d e c i s i o n s o f w h i c h were b i n d i n g l S ' 1 F a i l e d t o c o m p l e t e i t b y t h e d e a d l i n e 29 T o t a l L o s s f r o m A c t u a l Sample 43 T o t a l C o m p l e t e l y U s e a b l e Sample 48. . 17 T h e s e e n t r i e s mean t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l s a m p l e was a c t u a l l y one h u n d r e d t e n , r a t h e r t h a n one h u n d r e d t h i r t e e n p e r s o n s , a s t h e y do n o t b e l o n g i n i t . 18 L o c . c i t . 19 The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c l a s s i f i e d u n d e r t h e s e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s were t a b u l a t e d f o r t h o s e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h t h e y h a d c o m p l e t e d , a n d t a b u l a t e d u n d e r t h e \" N o n - r e s p o n s e \" c a t e g o r y f o r t h o s e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h t h e y d i d n o t h a v e c o m p l e t e d . 20 L o c . c i t . 21 L o c . c i t . 75 Of t h e f o r t y - e i g h t c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s 22 r e t u r n e d , t w e n t y - o n e were f r o m men who h a d s e r v e d o n l y a s u n i o n n o m i n e e s ; t w e n t y - t w o were f r o m e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , 24-a n d f i v e were f r o m c h a i r m e n . I n t h e l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t , o f t h e p o t e n t i a l s a m p le o f one h u n d r e d t e n c o n c i l i a t o r s , t h e a u t h o r o b t a i n e d c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f r o m f o r t y - e i g h t , o r f o r t y - t h r e e p o i n t s i x p e r c e n t , b u t f a i l e d t o o b t a i n them f r o m s i x t y - t w o , o r f i f t y - t h r e e p o i n t f o u r p e r c e n t , i t i s l e g i t i m a t e t o q u e s t i o n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s 22 S e v e n r e s p o n d e n t s r e t u r n e d p a r t i a l l y c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s , a n d t h o s e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h t h e y a n s w e r e d were i n c l u d e d i n t h e t a b u l a t i o n s done on t h e f o r t y - e i g h t c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s . 27) Of t h e t w e n t y - t w o e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , s e v e n t e e n h a d s e r v e d o n l y a s e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s ; one h a d s e r v e d t w i c e a s a c h a i r m a n , as w e l l ;as t w i c e a s a u n i o n n o m i n e e , b u t , a s he h a d s e r v e d s i x t y t i m e s a s a n e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e , he was c l a s s i f i e d a s s u c h ; one h a d s e r v e d f i v e t i m e s a s a u n i o n n o m i n e e , b u t , a s he h a d . s e r v e d s i x t i m e s a s a n e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e , he was c l a s s i f i e d — a d m i t t e d l y r a t h e r a r b i t r a r i l y — a s s u c h ; one h a d s e r v e d t e n t i m e s a s a c h a i r m a n , once a s a u n i o n n o m i n e e , a n d t e n t i m e s a s a n e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e , an d b e c a u s e , o f t h e l a w y e r s i n t h e o r i g i n a l sample o f one h u n d r e d t e n p e r s o n s , a l m o s t a l l who a p p e a r e d a s n o m i n e e s a p p e a r e d f o r e m p l o y e r s , i t was d e c i d e d , somewhat a r b i t r a r i l y , p e r h a p s , t o c l a s s i f y t h i s man, a l a w y e r , a s a n e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e ; an d one, w h i l e he h a d s e r v e d o n e \" h u n d r e d t i m e s a s a u n i o n nominee a n d o n l y t h i r t y - f i v e t i m e s a s a n e m p l o y e r n o minee ( a s w e l l a s once a s a c h a i r m a n ) , was c l a s s i f i e d a s a n e m p l o y e r nominee b e c a u s e he h a s i n r e c e n t y e a r s s e r v e d a s a l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s c o n s u l t a n t t o c e r t a i n f i r m s , and h i s sym--p a t h i e s a r e t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be w i t h e m p l o y e r s , i t b e i n g assumed t h a t he h a s n o t s e r v e d a s a u n i o n n o m inee s i n c e he became a l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s c o n s u l t a n t f o r management. 24- Of t h e f i v e c h a i r m e n , o n l y one h a d s e r v e d on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i n any c a p a c i t y o t h e r t h a n t h a t o f c h a i r m a n . I n a d d i t i o n t o s e r v i n g s i x t y t i m e s as a c h a i r m a n , t h i s i n d i v i d u a l s e r v e d once a s a u n i o n n o m i n e e ; he was t h e r e f o r e c l a s s i f i e d a s a c h a i r m a n . c a n be c o n s i d e r e d t o a p p l y t o t h e r e s t o f t h e s a m p l e . The most s i g n i f i c a n t b a s i s u p o n w h i c h t o e s t a b l i s h t h e d e g r e e o f s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e two g r o u p s w o u l d seem t o be t h a t o f t h e r e l a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e o f e a c h g r o u p on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , t h e r e a s o n f o r t h i s b e i n g t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y a r e b a s e d e n t i r e l y u p o n t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f r e s p o n d e n t s on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . I f t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e two g r o u p s i s h i g h l y s i m i l a r , o r i f t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e \" r e s p o n s e \" g r o u p i s s u p e r i o r t o t h a t o f t h e \" n o n - r e s p o n s e \" g r o u p , t h e n c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d u p o n d a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e f o r m e r c a n be a s s u m e d — w i t h , o f c o u r s e , some t i m o r o u s n e s s , f o r , o f c o u r s e , s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n e x p e r i e n c e may w e l l , a l l u n b e k n o w n s t t o t h e a u t h o r , be i n v o l v e d — t o be e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e l a t t e r g r o u p . I f , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e \" r e s p o n s e \" g r o u p i s m a r k e d l y i n f e r i o r t o t h a t o f t h e \" n o n - r e s p o n s e \" g r o u p , t h e n t h i s w o u l d c l e a r l y n o t be t h e c a s e , a n d a n y c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d w o u l d h a v e t o be c o n f i n e d t o t h e \" r e s p o n s e \" g r o u p . D a t a on t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e two g r o u p s was a v a i l a b l e o n l y f o r t h e p e r i o d e x t e n d i n g f r o m J a n u a r y , 1959 t o J u n e , I960, a n d f o r one h u n d r e d t h r e e o f t h e one h u n d r e d t e n p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d . The mean a n d t h e m e d i a n number o f B o a r d s u p o n w h i c h u n i o n n o m i n e e s , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , a n d c h a i r m e n f r o m e a c h o f t h e two g r o u p s h a d s e r v e d , c o n s t i t u t e d t h e b a s i s o f c o m p a r i s o n . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n a p p e a r s i n T a b l e 111(a). TABLE III(a) COMPARISON OF THE EXPERIENCE OP THE RESPONSE AND THE NON-RESPONSE GROUPS' Response Group Non-response Group No. of Persons No. of Boards Mean No. of Boards Median No. of Boards No. of Persons No. of Boards Mean No. of Boards Median No. of Boards Union Nominees 20 52 2.6 2 26 64 2.5 2 Employer Nominees 21 50 2.4 1 25 48 1.9 1 Chairmen 4 24 6.0 6.5 7 40 5 .7 1 78 The d a t a c o n t a i n e d i n T a b l e I I I ( a ) d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t , i n a l l c a s e s , t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e p e r s o n s who c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e q u a l s o r e x c e e d s t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h o s e who d i d n o t , a n d i t may t h e r e f o r e be c o n c l u d e d , w i t h , a s h a s b e e n r e m a r k e d , some t i m o r o u s n e s s , t h a t c o n -c l u s i o n s d e r i v e d f r o m c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s may be c o n s i d e r e d a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e e n t i r e s a m p l e . The r e l a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e o f u n i o n n o m i n e e s , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , and c h a i r m e n i s g i v e n i n T a b l e 1 1 1 ( b ) b e l o w . The c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e d f r o m p a r t i a l l y c o m p l e t e d a s w e l l as c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The e x p e r i e n c e o f t h o s e who have s e r v e d on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i n more t h a n one c a p a c i t y i s c o u n t e d i n e a c h c a t e g o r y . TABLE 1 1 1 ( b ) U n i o n N o minees E m p l o y e r Nominees C h a i r m e n Mean Number o f B o a r d s 18.8 15-1 17.5 M e d i a n Number o f B o a r d s 10 .0 6 . 0 6 . 0 (N=27) (N=23) ( N = l l ) The d a t a show t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s a r e , i n g e n e r a l , more e x p e r i e n c e d t h a n e i t h e r e m p l o y e r . n o m i n e e s o r c h a i r m e n . I I I . The T e s t i n g o f E a c h H y p o t h e s i s , t h e R e s u l t s o f t h e T e s t s , a n d t h e I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e R e s u l t s M i s c e l l a n e o u s I n t r o d u c t o r y I n f o r m a t i o n A l l t h e q u e s t i o n s u s e d t o t e s t t h e h y p o t h e s e s c a n \"be f o u n d i n A p p e n d i x B, w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f a c o p y o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A l l o f t h e d a t a f r o m f o r c e d - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s c a n be. f o u n d i n t h e t a b l e s , p r o v i d e d i n A p p e n d i x A. Where a n y t h i n g o f i n t e r e s t o r s i g n i f i c a n c e c o u l d be d e r i v e d f r o m comments a p p e n d e d t o f o r c e d - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s b y r e s p o n d e n t s , o r f r o m o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n s , r e f e r e n c e i s made t o t h i s . Where f a i r l y m a r k e d c l e a v a g e s o f o p i n i o n b e t w e e n u n i o n n o m i n e e s , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , and c h a i r m e n o c c u r , t h e y a r e d i s c u s s e d . The q u e s t i o n s b y means o f w h i c h e a c h h y p o t h e s i s was t e s t e d , a s w e l l a s t h e t a b l e s i n w h i c h t h e d a t a p e r t a i n i n g to- e a c h h y p o t h e s i s a r e c o n t a i n e d , a p p e a r i n b r a c k e t s i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e f i r s t r e f e r e n c e , i n t h e t e x t o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r , t o e a c h h y p o t h e s i s . I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f d a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m q u e s t i o n s a n s w e r e d i n t e r m s o f a n o r d i n a l s c a l e , a \" c h i - s q u a r e b y i n s p e c t i o n \" t e c h n i q u e was e m p l o y e d : t h e p e r c e n t a g e r e s p o n s e o b t a i n e d f o r t h e two c a t e g o r i e s a t one e n d o f t h e s c a l e was s i m p l y c o m p a r e d t o t h a t o b t a i n e d f o r t h e two c a t e g o r i e s a t t h e o t h e r e n d . One l a s t m a t t e r o f g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t i s t h a t , i n most c a s e s , q u e s t i o n s p u t t o r e s p o n d e n t s a b o u t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l were p h r a s e d i n g e n e r a l t e r m s . R e s p o n d e n t s w e r e , a s a r u l e , n o t a s k e d how u n i o n o r how e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s w o u l d be l i k e l y t o r e a c t t o a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , b u t r a t h e r how n o m i n e e s , i n g e n e r a l , w o u l d be l i k e l y t o r e a c t . I t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m s u c h q u e r i e s c o u l d be o p e n t o a m b iguous i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i n that i t may not be c l e a r , when the question i s general, whether, f o r example, union nominees are responding on the basis of t h e i r perceptions of t h e i r own behaviour, t h e i r perceptions of the behaviour of employer nominees, or both. Where a question i s phrased i n general terms, and no cleavage of opinion i s apparent between the responses of union and of employer nominees, the author f e e l s that these responses may be i n t e r p r e t e d as being applicable to nominees i n general (provided, of course, that comments do not indicate other-wise). Where, however, responses to such a general question demonstrate that a s i g n i f i c a n t cleavage of opinion e x i s t s between union and employer nominees, i t has generally been assumed (again provided that comments-do not indicate other-wise) that each group i s r e f e r r i n g p r i n c i p a l l y to the behaviour of i t s own nominees. I t i s perhaps true that the p o s s i b i l i t y of such ambiguities a r i s i n g could have been eliminated by the phraseology of the questions; t h i s s o l u t i o n was r e j e c t e d , however, on the grounds that i t would have rendered p r o h i b i t i v e l y complicated a questionnaire that was already verging upon such a state. A. External Factors I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that, i n Chapter I I , a number of hypotheses—twenty-two, to be exact—were r e c l a s s i f i e d under the r u b r i c of External Factors. Each of these w i l l be discussed i n turn below. 1. P u b l i c O p i n i o n ( a ) H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 31-32; T a b l e s I V - V I I ] c o n c e r n e d , i t s e l f w i t h t h e e f f e c t on t h e n o m i n e e s o f a n t i c i -p a t i o n o f t h e s u p p o r t o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n f o r t h e r e p o r t o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . I t was f e l t t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n w o u l d t e n d t o s u p p o r t t h e B o a r d r e p o r t , a n d t h a t t h i s w o u l d b r i n g p r e s s u r e t o b e a r on t h e n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e t o t h e r e p o r t o f t h e B o a r d , an d h e n c e t o a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , i t b e i n g assumed t h a t f a i l u r e t o do s o w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f p u b l i c s y m p a t h y f o r t h e d i s s e n t i n g p a r t y . The d a t a c o n t a i n e d i n T a b l e I V s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s i g n i n g o f a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t i s seen,, b y a m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s , a s g i v i n g a p a r t y more p u b l i c s y m p a t h y t h a n i f t h e y h a d s i g n e d a m a t j o r i t y r e p o r t , b u t , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e m a j o r i t y ( a s may be s e e n f r o m T a b l e V ) , t h i s d o e s n o t v e r y f r e q u e n t l y make n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t t h e y o u g h t t o a g r e e t o a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t . T h i s r e s u l t d o e s n o t u p h o l d t h e h y p o t h e s i s . F u r t h e r , t h e s i g n i n g o f a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t a p p e a r s t o p r o c u r e a p a r t y l e s s p u b l i c s y m p a t h y t h a n i f t h e y h a d s i g n e d a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t ( s e e T a b l e V I ) b u t t h e d a t a f r o m T a b l e V I I i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s w i l l n o t p e r s u a d e a nominee who i s g o i n g t o be i n t h e m i n o r i t y p o s i t i o n t o a l t e r h i s p o s i t i o n s u f f i c i e n t l y t o be i n on a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , a f i n d i n g w h i c h d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s . The d a t a c o n t a i n e d i n T a b l e V s u g g e s t t h a t a n o m i n ee who i s i n a p o s i t i o n o f b e i n g a b l e t o s i g n a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t w i t h t h e c h a i r m a n may, o n o c c a s i o n , be w i l l i n g t o s h i f t h i s p o s i t i o n somewhat i n o r d e r t o make t h e r e p o r t a u n a n i m o u s one b e c a u s e o f h i s a w a r e n e s s t h a t t h i s w i l l u s u a l l y g i v e h i s p a r t y g r e a t e r p u b l i c s y m p a t h y t h a n w i l l t h e s i g n i n g o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t . (Comments s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s i s l i k e l y t o be t h e c a s e o n l y i f t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e two p a r t i e s a r e f a i r l y c l o s e . ) On t h e o t h e r h a n d , h o w e v e r , a nominee who i s g o i n g t o be i n a p o s i t i o n o f . s u b m i t t i n g a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t w i l l n o t be p e r s u a d e d t o a l t e r h i s p o s i t i o n b y h i s a w a r e n e s s o f t h e r e d u c t i o n i n p u b l i c s y m p a t h y t h a t a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t , i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h a m a j o r i t y o r a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , w i l l p r o d u c e . T a b l e s V I , a n d V I I i n d i c a t e t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s f e e l , somewhat more s t r o n g l y t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s , t h a t t h e s i g n i n g o f a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t w i l l r e s u l t i n a l o s s o f p u b l i c s y m p athy, an d t h a t e m p l o y e r s a r e more w i l l i n g t o a l t e r t h e i r p o s i t i o n a s a r e s u l t o f t h i s . I t seems, t h e n , t h a t e m p l o y e r s a r e more d e p e n d e n t u p o n p u b l i c g o o d - w i l l , more s e n s i t i v e t o a l o s s p f p u b l i c s y m pathy, an d more l i k e l y t o a l t e r t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n o r d e r t o a v o i d s u b m i t t i n g a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t , t h a n a r e u n i o n s . However, a s may be s e e n f r o m T a b l e V I I , a m a j o r i t y o f e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s do n o t f e e l t h i s way. I n summation, t h e n , i t may be c o n c l u d e d t h a t , w h i l e c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s r e c e i v e d some s u p p o r t , i t must, i n t h e m a i n , be r e j e c t e d . ( b ) H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 3 3 - 3 7 ; T a b l e s V I I I - X I ] a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e were two m a i n r e a s o n s t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n a c t e d a s a p r e s s u r e on t h e p a r t i e s t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t , t h e f i r s t , H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i ) ( a ) , b e i n g t h a t , i f t h e e m p l o y e r s e l l s g o o d s o r s e r v i c e s d i r e c t l y t o t h e p u b l i c , he d o e s n o t w i s h t o l o s e o r l e s s e n p u b l i c g o o d - w i l l b y a s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t , a n d t h e s e c o n d , H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i ) ( b ) , b e i n g t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s a p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e o f unwelcome l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d a l t e r t h e p r e s e n t -c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y . T a b l e V I I I p r o v i d e s some s u p p o r t f o r t h e f i r s t o f t h e above r e a s o n s , w i t h 38% s u p p o r t i n g i t , a n e q u a l number d e c l a r i n g t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s n o t a p r e s s u r e f o r a g r e e m e n t a t t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s t a g e , a n d 1 6 % a v e r r i n g t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n was a p r e s s u r e t o a g r e e m e n t a t t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s t a g e , b u t f o r a d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n . The s e c o n d r e a s o n was d e c i s i v e l y d e f e a t e d , as may be s e e n f r o m T a b l e I X . The d a t a o f T a b l e X f i r m l y r e j e c t t h e i d e a t h a t n o m i n e e s and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s c o n c e r n t h e m s e l v e s w i t h the- a t t i t u d e s a n d s t a t e m e n t s o f l e g i s l a t o r s i n a n e f f o r t t o a v o i d r e s t r i c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n . An e n q u i r y a s t o what, i f a n y , l e g i s l a t i v e a l t e r a t i o n s o f t h e p r e s e n t c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y l a b o u r a n d management w o u l d p r e f e r t o a v o i d , r e v e a l e d no p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n , a l t h o u g h t h e r e were s e v e r a l r e f e r e n c e s o n b o t h s i d e s t o t h e u n d e s i r a b i l i t y o f c o m p u l s o r y a r b i t r a t i o n . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e w i s h t o a v o i d s u c h l e g i s l a t i o n made t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s , a n d h e n c e t h e n o m i n e e s , more w i l l i n g . t o l o w e r t h e i r demands on one a n o t h e r a n d more w i l l i n g t o c o m p r o m i s e i n an e f f o r t t o k e e p t h e p r e s e n t c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y b y r e d u c i n g t h e number o f t i m e s i t f a i l s t o s e t t l e d i s p u t e s . The r e s p o n s e t o t h i s q u e s t i o n , shown i n T a b l e X I , d e m o n s t r a t e s c o n c l u s i v e l y t h a t t h i s i s a r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . E m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e t h e y a r e more c l o s e l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e p r o b l e m , f e e l more s t r o n g l y t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n a c t s a s a p r e s s u r e t o a g r e e m e n t b e c a u s e t h e i n c o n v e n i e n c e o f a s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t c o u l d b r i n g a b o u t a l o s s o f p u b l i c g o o d - w i l l . A f u r t h e r c l e a v a g e o f i n t e r e s t , b u t one f o r w h i c h no e x p l a n a t i i h a s s u g g e s t e d i t s e l f t o t h e a u t h o r , i s t h a t , w h i l e n o m i n e e s f r o m b o t h s i d e s f e e l t h a t t h e w i s h t o a v o i d new c o n c i l i a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n i s n o t a f a c t o r t h a t makes t h e p a r t i e s more w i l l i n g t o c o m p r o m i s e , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s seem t o f e e l , more s t r o n g l y t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s , t h a t i t i s n o t a f a c t o r ( s e e T a b l e X I ) . T h u s , i n summation, H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i ) ( a ) — t h a t c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p r e s s u r e t o a g r e e m e n t e x e r t e d b y a n e m p l o y e r ' s d e s i r e n o t t o l o s e p u b l i c g o o d - w i l l — r e c e i v e d some s u p p o r t , t h o u g h n o t o u t r i g h t c o n f i r m a t i o n ; H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i ) ( b ) — t h a t c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p r e s s u r e t o a g r e e m e n t e x e r t e d b y unwelcome l e g i s l a t i o n e n g e n d e r e d b y p u b l i c o p i n i o n — w a s d e c i s i v e l y r e j e c t e d . C o n s i d e r i n g Hypothesis 2 ( v i ) as a u n i t , then, i t i s c l e a r t h a t i t cannot he granted acceptance. (c) Hypothesis 2 ( v i i ) [Questions 49-51; Tables X I I - XVII] concerned i t s e l f w i t h p u b l i c o p i n i o n as i t r e l a t e d to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the n o r m a t i v e l y -o r i e n t e d chairman. I t was f e l t t h a t the normative approach on the p a r t of the chairman c o u l d be e f f e c t i v e o n l y i n those i n d u s t r i e s or t r a d e s which were l a r g e , of great importance t o the e n t i r e economy, and hence s e n s i t i v e to p u b l i c o p i n i o n , because t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y would serve t o persuade them to go along w i t h the normative chairman i n order t o a v o i d p u b l i c wrath and p o s s i b l e l e g i s l a t i o n . I t i s not claimed t h a t the normative technique w i l l be more s u c c e s s f u l than the accommodative under such circumstances, but merely t h a t i t w i l l be capable of succeeding at a l l o n l y under such circumstances. Table X I I i n d i c a t e s q u i t e d e f i n i t e l y t h a t the more important an i n d u s t r y or trade i n v o l v e d i n a d i s p u t e i s t o the economy of the p r o v i n c e , the more s e n s i t i v e the union and the employer w i l l be t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n . However, Table X I I I shows t h a t t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y cannot, i n the m a j o r i t y of cases, be a t t r i b u t e d t o any t h r e a t of unwelcome l e g i s l a t i o n a r i s i n g from the f a i l u r e of the p a r t i e s to s e t t l e these d i s p u t e s . Tables XIV and XVI g i v e , r e s p e c t i v e l y , respondents' o p i n i o n s as to which type of c h a i r m a n i s l i k e l y t o be more e f f e c t i v e when t h e i n d u s t r y i s s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n , and when i t i s n o t . C o m p a r i s o n shows t h a t t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e method i s o v e r -w h e l m i n g l y p r e f e r r e d i n e a c h c a s e , b u t t h a t s u p p o r t f o r t h e n o r m a t i v e m ethod g o e s up ( f r o m 12.7% t o 2 0 . 0 % ) , a n d f o r t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e , down ( f r o m 63.6% t o 5 0 . 9 % ) , when t h e i n d u s t r y i s s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n . T h i s w o u l d seem t o p r o v i d e some s u p p o r t f o r the. h y p o t h e s i s , a l t h o u g h t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e a d m i t t e d l y t o o s m a l l t o p e r m i t o f a n y b o l d d e c l a r a t i o n s , a n d i t o f f e r s s t r o n g e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , a l s o p u t f o r w a r d i n C h a p t e r I I a s a n a d j u n c t to. t h e above h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t i n i n d u s t r i e s o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c o n c e r n t o t h e p u b l i c , a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n i s t h e o n l y v a r i e t y t h a t i s l i k e l y t o be e f f e c t i v e . T a b l e s XV\" a n d X V I I g i v e , r e s p e c t i v e l y , r e s p o n d e n t s ' o p i n i o n s as t o t h e r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e m e t h o d t h e y s e l e c t a s b e i n g t h e b e s t i n a n i n d u s t r y s e n s i t i v e , a n d i n a n i n d u s t r y n o t e s p e c i a l l y s e n s i t i v e , t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n . H e r e , t h e number e v a l u a t i n g t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e method ( M e t h o d B) as t h e s u p e r i o r one i s a m a r k e d m a j o r i t y f o r b o t h t y p e s o f i n d u s t r y , b u t t h i s m a j o r i t y i n c r e a s e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y when t h e i n d u s t r y i s one o f l i t t l e c o n c e r n t o t h e p u b l i c , a n d h e n c e n o t s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n . Were o u r h y p o t h e s i s c o r r e c t , we w o u l d e x p e c t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e t o be c o u n t e r p o i s e d b y a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f v o t e s f o r t h e g r e a t e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f n o r m a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n ( M e t h o d A) where t h e i n d u s t r y i s s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n , a n d a d e c r e a s e i n t h e s e v o t e s when i t i s n o t . T h i s i s i n f a c t t h e c a s e : a s m a l l d i f -f e r e n c e ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6%) s u p p o r t s t h e h y p o t h e s i s . I n summation, t h e n , t h e d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n i s o v e r w h e l m i n g l y p r e f e r r e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e i n d u s t r y t o t h e economy a n d t h e p u b l i c , a f i n d i n g w h i c h c o n f i r m s t h e a d j u n c t h y p o -t h e s i s , r e f e r r e d t o a b o v e , t h a t i n a n i n d u s t r y o f r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l c o n c e r n t o t h e p u b l i c , a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n i s t h e o n l y v a r i e t y l i k e l y t o be e f f e c t i v e . So f a r a s o u r p r i n c i p a l h y p o t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d , t h e d a t a do t e n d t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t n o r m a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n h a s a g r e a t e r c h a n c e o f b e i n g e f f e c t i v e i n an i n d u s t r y t h a t i s i m p o r t a n t a n d h e n c e s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n , b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e t o p e r m i t t h i s t o be o t h e r t h a n t h e most t e n t a t i v e o f c o n c l u s i o n s . As f o r t h e r a t i o n a l e o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s , t h e d a t a s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f a n i n d u s t r y t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n seemed t o p a r a l l e l i t s i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e economy, b u t i t was c l e a r l y n o t t h e c a s e t h a t t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y was c a u s e d b y a f e a r o f r e s t r i c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o n c i l i a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s ( d ) H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( v i i i ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 52-53; T a b l e s X V I I I - X I X ] f o c u s e d u p o n t h e e f f e c t o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n on t h e c h a i r m a n ' s r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n , h y p o t h e s i z i n g t h a t , where t h e d i s p u t e o c c u r r e d i n a l a r g e i n d u s t r y o f g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e economy, a n d one, h e n c e , r e l a t i v e l y s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n , t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n w o u l d p e r c e i v e h i s r o l e as r e q u i r i n g t h a t he show c o n c e r n f o r t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t b y a c t i n g i n p r e d o m i n a n t l y n o r m a t i v e t e r m s . The d a t a g i v e n i n T a b l e X V I I I c o n f i r m t h a t c h a i r m e n i n v o l v e d i n s u c h a d i s p u t e a r e p e r c e i v e d a s f e e l i n g t h e m s e l v e s t o be u n d e r o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . ( E m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s seem t o f e e l somewhat more s t r o n g l y a b o u t t h i s t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s , p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e \" t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t \" may be u s e d b y e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a s a b a s i s f o r a r g u i n g a g a i n s t i n c r e a s e s . i n l a b o u r c o s t s . ) T a b l e X I X p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f a q u e s t i o n i n q u i r i n g a s t o w h i c h o f t h e two b a s i c t y p e s o f c h a i r m a n - b e h a v i o u r a c h a i r m a n i n v o l v e d i n s u c h a d i s p u t e i s most l i k e l y t o a d o p t . The a c c o m m o d a t i v e m e t h o d ( M e t h o d B) r e c e i v e d 36.4-% o f t h e v o t e , as c o m p a r e d t o 3 0 . 9 % f o r t h e n o r m a t i v e m e t h o d ( M e t h o d A) a n d a n o n -r e s p o n s e r a t e o f 32.7%. T h u s , w h i l e a s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a v e r r e d t h a t c h a i r m e n w o u l d f e e l a n o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t h a n t h o s e who d e c l a r e d t h e c o n t r a r y , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e v o t e was a l m o s t e q u a l l y d i v i d e d on t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r c h a i r m e n w o u l d i n f a c t b e h a v e n o r m a t i v e l y — w h i c h i s t h e m e thod t h e a u t h o r e n v i s a g e d a s t h e one t h a t w o u l d p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y , c o u p l e d w i t h an u n u s u a l l y h i g h n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e , a s w e l l a s t h e s u p p o r t o f a m a r k e d l y g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f c h a i r m e n t h a n o f n o m i n e e s f o r t h e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e , s u g g e s t t h a t n o m i n e e s do p e r c e i v e t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e m ethod w i l l b e t t e r p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , b u t t h a t , n o n e t h e l e s s , t h e y do n o t l i k e i t a n d a r e h e n c e u n w i l l i n g t o v o t e f o r i t . I n summation, t h e n , t h e d a t a a r e , i n t h e a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n , s u f f i c i e n t l y e q u i v o c a l t o p r e c l u d e a n y c o n f i d e n t a s s e r t i o n o f t h e a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s . ( e ) H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i x ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 5 4 - 5 5 ; T a b l e s XX - X X I ] was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n on nominee r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n , so f a r a s t h e a v o i d a n c e o f e x a g g e r a t e d b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s , a n d w i l l i n g n e s s t o c o m p r o m i s e , a r e c o n c e r n e d . I t was f e l t t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f n o m i n e e s who r e p r e s e n t e d l a b o u r o r management g r o u p s i n v o l v e d i n an i n d u s t r y s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n w o u l d a v o i d e x a g g e r a t e d i n i t i a l b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s a n d be r e l a t i v e l y w i l l i n g t o make m u t u a l c o n c e s s i o n s a s a r e s u l t o f t h e i r d e s i r e t o a v o i d t h e p o s s i b l e r e s t r i c t i v e l y l e g i -s l a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f p u b l i c w r a t h . P r e v i o u s d a t a h a v e a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e f a c t o r o f a d v e r s e p u b l i c o p i n i o n r e s u l t i n g i n unwelcome l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h e a r e a o f c o n c i l i a t i o n i s n o t one t h a t e x e r c i s e s a n y a p p r e c i a b l e i n f l u e n c e . A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e two c a t e g o r i e s a t e a c h e n d o f t h e s c a l e ( t h a t i s , o f t h e \" u s u a l l y - o f t e n \" and \" v e r y r a r e l y - n e v e r \" c a t e g o r i e s ) i n T a b l e XX i n d i c a t e s t h a t more r e s p o n d e n t s f e e l t h a t n o m i n e e s f r o m s u c h a n i n d u s t r y do n o t , a s a r u l e , make t h e i r demands a n d o f f e r s l e s s e x t r e m e on t h i s a c c o u n t t h a n s u p p o r t t h e o t h e r e n d o f t h e s c a l e . However, t h e m a r g i n h e l d b y t h e more s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t e d o p i n i o n on t h i s p o i n t i s n o t g r e a t , w h i c h l e n d s some s u p p o r t t o a h y p o t h e s i s t h a t must, i n t h e m a i n , be r e j e c t e d . T a b l e X X I d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t n o m i n e e s come f r o m s u c h a n i n d u s t r y w i l l , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e g r e a t e r number (36.4-% v e r s u s 23.6%) c a u s e them t o be more w i l l i n g t o c o m promise t h a n t h e y w o u l d be o t h e r w i s e . The h y p o t h e s i s i s t h u s i n p a r t c o n f i r m e d a n d i n p a r t r e j e c t e d . A g e n e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e d a t a r e l a t i n g t o t h e f i v e f o r e g o i n g h y p o t h e s e s w o u l d seem t o s u g g e s t t h a t , a l t h o u g h s e v e r a l f a c e t s o f t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s r e c e i v e d some s u p p o r t , p u b l i c o p i n i o n d o e s n o t , i n t h e m a i n ( w i t h — a l t h o u g h t h i s was n o t t e s t e d — t h e p r o b a b l e e x c e p t i o n o f p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s ) , a p p e a r t o be a c a u s a l f a c t o r o f a n y g r e a t s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . 2. B a r g a i n i n g Power ( a ) H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 57-60; T a b l e s X X I I - XXV] c o n c e r n e d i t s e l f w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f p a r t y b a r g a i n i n g power o n nominee r o l e - p r e f e r e n c e w i t h r e f e r e n c e - t o t h e c h a i r m a n . I t was h e l d t h a t , where a n ominee r e p r e s e n t e d a p a r t y w i t h f a i r l y m a r k e d s u p e r i o r i t y o f b a r g a i n i n g power, t h e nominee w o u l d p r e f e r t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n a d o p t an a c c o m m o d a t i v e a p p r o a c h , a n d t h a t , c o n v e r s e l y , a nominee r e p r e s e n t i n g a p a r t y w i t h t h e l e s s e r b a r g a i n i n g p ower w o u l d p r e f e r t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n a d o p t a n o r m a t i v e a p p r o a c h . T a b l e X X I I I shows t h a t , when t h e y a r e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a r t y w i t h t h e s t r o n g e r b a r g a i n i n g power, 52.7% o f t h e n o m i n e e s p r e f e r t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e a p p r o a c h , a s a g a i n s t 21.8% f o r t h e n o r m a t i v e , w h e r e a s , as T a b l e XXV i n d i c a t e s , when t h e y a r e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a r t y w i t h t h e w e a k e r b a r g a i n i n g power, t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e m e t h o d r e c e i v e s 4 0 . 0 % o f t h e v o t e , a s a g a i n s t 27.3% f o r t h e n o r m a t i v e . A l t h o u g h c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d h a v e r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e r e c e i v e t h e g r e a t e r amount o f s u p p o r t , i n T a b l e XXV, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s h i f t — a l b e i t a r a t h e r s m a l l o n e — i s i n . t h e d i r e c t i o n p r e d i c t e d b y t h e h y p o t h e s i s d o e s g i v e i t a s m a l l m easure o f s u p p o r t . F u r t h e r , s e v e r a l r e s p o n s e s t o a q u e s t i o n a s k i n g r e s p o n d e n t s why t h e y w o u l d f a v o u r t h e t e c h n i q u e t h e y c h o s e u n d e r e a c h o f t h e two c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i d s u p p o r t t h e e n t i r e h y p o t h e s i s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e s h i f t o f o p i n i o n i s n o t p r o p o r t i o n a l . M o v i n g f r o m T a b l e X X I I I t o T a b l e XXV, M e t h o d B ( t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e ) d r o p s b y 12.7%, w h i l e M e t h o d A ( t h e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e ) g a i n s b y o n l y 5«5%, a d i s c r e p a n c y o f 7.2%. A l t h o u g h t h e s m a l l n e s s o f t h e q u a n t i t i e s i n v o l v e d p r e c l u d . e s any d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n s , t h i s s u g g e s t s t o t h e a u t h o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t , when a nominee r e p r e -s e n t s t h e w e a k e r p a r t y , he d o e s n o t want t o s h i f t f r o m a p u r e l y a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e a l l t h e way t o a p u r e l y n o r m a t i v e one, b u t m e r e l y t o a c o m b i n a t i o n o f b o t h t e c h n i q u e s The e v i d e n c e f o r t h i s i s , o f c o u r s e , s o l e a n a s t o p e r m i t t h i s t o be no more t h a n a t e n t a t i v e s p e c u l a t i o n . T a b l e X X I I I p o i n t s up a n i n t r i g u i n g d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n . I t a p p e a r s t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s who h a v e n o t r e p r e s e n t e d , on a B o a r d , a p a r t y w i t h g r e a t e r b a r g a i n i n g power, p r e f e r a n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n t o a m a r k e d l y g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s who h a v e n o t r e p r e s e n t e d a p a r t y w i t h g r e a t e r b a r g a i n i n g power. However, b o t h u n i o n a n d e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s who h a v e r e p r e s e n t e d , o n a B o a r d , a p a r t y w i t h s u p e r i o r b a r g a i n i n g power seem t o a g r e e t h a t t h e y p r e f e r a n a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m a n . A l t h o u g h i t i s p u r e l y a s p e c u l a t i o n , t h i s may mean t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s who h a v e n e v e r b e e n i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f c o n f r o n t i n g a n o r m a t i v e l y -o r i e n t e d c h a i r m a n when t h e y p o s s e s s s u p e r i o r b a r g a i n i n g p ower f e e l ( a l t h o u g h t h e i r u n i o n c o u n t e r p a r t s do n o t f e e l t h a t t h e y t h e m s e l v e s w o u l d be c a p a b l e o f t h e same t h i n g ) t h a t t h e y w o u l d be a b l e t o sway s u c h a c h a i r m a n i n t h e i r d i r e c t i o n . The f a c t t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s who h a v e r e p r e -s e n t e d a p a r t y w i t h t h e g r e a t e r b a r g a i n i n g power p r e f e r a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m e n may, t h e n , mean e i t h e r t h a t t h e y h a v e n o t e n c o u n t e r e d c h a i r m e n o f t h e n o r m a t i v e t y p e , o r t h a t t h e y f o u n d t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m a n more t o t h e i r a d v a n t a g e A f u r t h e r v a r i a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t i s t h a t , i n T a b l e XXV, more e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s t h a n u n i o n n o m i n e e s 93 i n d i c a t e d a p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n . T h i s i s t h e l o g i c a l a n s w e r , w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s a c t u a l l y c o r r e c t , and t h e d i s c r e p a n c y c o u l d p o s s i b l y be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e p r o b a b l e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t o f e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . I n summation, t h e n , t h e h y p o t h e s i s r e c e i v e s o n l y a s m a l l m easure o f s u p p o r t , a n d must t h e r e f o r e be r e j e c t e d . ( b ) H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i i ) [ Q u e s t i o n 71; T a b l e s XXVI -X X V I I ] f o c u s e s u p o n t h e e f f e c t o f t h e r e l a t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p o wer o f t h e p a r t i e s o n t h e b e h a v i o u r o f a n a c c o m m o d a t i v e l y -o r i e n t e d c h a i r m a n where a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t i s n o t m a t e r i a l i z i n g . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h a r e s u f -f i c i e n t l y c o m p l e x t h a t t h e y w i l l n o t be r e c a p i t u l a t e d h e r e ( t h e r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o t h e d e s c r i p t i v e m a t e r i a l on H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i i ) i n C h a p t e r I I ) , where a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t i s n o t m a t e r i a l i z i n g , a n a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m a n w i l l d e c l a r e h i s i n t e n t i o n o f s i g n i n g a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t w i t h t h e nominee w i t h t h e g r e a t e r b a r g a i n i n g power s h o u l d a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t n o t be f o r t h c o m i n g . Q u e s t i o n 7 1(a) s t a t e d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ( r e f e r r e d t o as \" c o n d i t i o n s \" a b o v e ) and a s k e d r e s p o n d e n t s t o g i v e t h e i r o p i n i o n s a s t o t h e n o m inee w i t h w h i c h t h e c h a i r m a n w o u l d be more l i k e l y t o s a y he w o u l d h a v e t o s i g n . The r e s p o n s e s t o t h i s q u e s t i o n , g i v e n i n T a b l e XXVI, i n d i c a t e t h a t , o f t h o s e who r e s p o n d e d t o one o f t h e two c h o i c e s p r o v i d e d , a s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r number (4-0.0% v e r s u s 16.4-%) f e l t t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n w o u l d i n d i c a t e h i s i n t e n t i o n t o s i g n w i t h t h e nominee w i t h t h e g r e a t e r b a r g a i n i n g p o w e r . A l t h o u g h t h i s w o u l d seem t o c o n f i r m t h e h y p o t h e s i s , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o n o t e t h a t t h e l a r g e s t s i n g l e v o t e (4-3.6%) f e l l i n t o t h e n o n - r e s p o n s e c a t e g o r y . The comments o f t h e s e r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , t h e m a j o r i t y o f them f e l t t h a t t h e b a r g a i n i n g power o f t h e p a r t i e s was a n i r r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m a n , b e c a u s e t h e y f e l t t h a t he o u g h t t o d e c i d e b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s , s h o u l d t h i s be n e c e s s a r y , s o l e l y o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e B o a r d . The f a c t t h a t a l l f o u r o f t h e c h a i r m e n who commented e x p r e s s e d t h i s v i e w a n d t h a t none o f t h e c h a i r m e n i n t h e s a mple s u p p o r t e d t h e h y p o t h e s i s p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t i t . T h u s , a l t h o u g h t h e h y p o t h e s i s r e c e i v e s a g r e a t d e a l o f s u p p o r t , a n e q u a l l y l a r g e b o d y o f o p i n i o n r e j e c t s i t . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e , t o o , t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s somewhat more s t r o n g l y t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s , a n d t h a t , f u r t h e r , t h e n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e o f u n i o n n o m i n e e s t o t h e q u e s t i o n i s t w i c e t h a t o f e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . To e n t e r once a g a i n t h e r e a l m o f s p e c u l a t i o n , t h i s c o u l d be c o n s t r u e d t o mean t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s a r e more a p p r e h e n s i v e a b o u t s u f f e r i n g a s t h e r e s u l t o f s u c h a s i t u a t i o n — a n d t h e r e s p o n s e o f t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s may i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y h a v e some b a s i s i n f a c t f o r t h e s e i m p u t e d f e a r s . Were t h i s t h e c a s e , t h e n i t w o u l d seem, f r o m t h e d a t a i n T a b l e X X V I , t h a t c h a i r m e n ' i n f a c t do what t h e h y p o t h e s i s s u g g e s t e d , h u t a r e u n w i l l i n g t o a d m i t i t . Q u e s t i o n 7 1(h) p r e s e n t s t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s ( s e e H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i i i ) i n C h a p t e r I I , o r Q u e s t i o n 7 1(h) i n A p p e n d i x B) and a s k s t h e n o m i n e e s w h e t h e r , i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , a c h a i r m a n w o u l d g e n e r a l l y b e h a v e i n t h i s way. O p i n i o n a t e a c h e n d o f t h e s c a l e i s e v e n l y d i v i d e d , ' w i t h 23.6% f e e l i n g t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f c h a i r m e n w o u l d , i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , b e h a v e i n t h i s way, a n d 23.7% f e e l i n g t h a t v e r y few o r no c h a i r m e n w o u l d so b e h a v e . T h u s , w h i l e 4 0 . 0 % o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , o n l y 23.6% f e e l t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f c h a i r m e n i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n w o u l d b e h a v e i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d way a s a r e s u l t o f t h e r a t i o n a l e p u t f o r w a r d b y t h e a u t h o r . T h u s , s u p p o r t f o r t h i s r a t i o n a l e d e f i n i t e l y e x i s t s , b u t n o t i n a n y s u b s t a n t i a l q u a n t i t y . 3 . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x ) [ Q u e s t i o n 56; T a b l e s X X V I I I -XXX] was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f a h i s t o r y o f h o s t i l e b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s ( i n a n i n d u s t r y s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n ) on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e c h a i r m a n . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , where a d i s p u t e i n s u c h a n i n d u s t r y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a h o s t i l e ( r a t h e r t h a n a c o n c i l i a t o r y ) a t t i t u d e , n o r m a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t y o n t h e p a r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l be t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e f o r i n f l u e n c i n g the two nominees i n the d i r e c t i o n of, or perhaps to, agreement. Table XXVIII gives the response to a question which, a f t e r o u t l i n i n g the above circumstances, asks respondents which of the two types of chairmen would be the l e s s e f f e c t i v e . 4-5.4% f e l t that the normative type would be the l e s s e f f e c t i v e , while 34.5% regarded the accommodative type as the l e s s e f f e c t i v e . In terms, then, simply of the allegiance of the greater number of votes, the hypothesis must therefore be rejected, but i t should be noted that i n Table LXXI, which gives the r e s u l t s of a query as to which type of chairman i s , i n general, the more e f f e c t i v e i n getting the two nominees to agree, the normative approach receives 12.7% of the vote (as compared to 34.5% i n Table XXVIII) and the accommodative approach receives 60.0% (as compared to 45.4% i n Table XXVIII). The f a c t that the normative approach gains 21.8% i n the above circumstances, while the accommodative technique loses 14.6%, provides considerable support f o r the hypothesis, but not enough to constitute outright confirmation. Table XXIX gives the response to a query as to how e f f e c t i v e , i n such a dispute, the respondent f e e l s the type of chairman's behaviour which he selected as being l e s s e f f e c t i v e would be. I f , i n Table XXIX, we lump, f o r each \"method\", the percentages i n the two \" e f f e c t i v e \" c e l l s , and i n the two \" i n e f f e c t i v e \" c e l l s , and then compare these percentages, we see that, f o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s as well as i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s , both methods receive p r a c t i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l scores. This means that the gap which existed between the two i n Table LXXI has been dramatically reduced, which adds fur t h e r support to the hypothesis. Thus, although the hypo-t h e s i s i s not confirmed i n the sense that a markedly greater number of respondents favour the normative technique than do not, i t has received rather s u b s t a n t i a l support. Question 56(c) asked respondents i f they f e l t that, i n such a dispute, the type of chairman-behaviour they chose as l e s s e f f e c t i v e would not, as a r u l e , be successful i n getting the two nominees to reach agreement, to please indicate why they f e l t i t would not be succe s s f u l . Table XXX shows the r e s u l t s of t h i s query. For t h i s manifestation of the r a t i o n a l e of the hypothesis to be supported (see Chapter I I , Hypothesis 2(x)), i t would be necessary that a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater number of persons se l e c t Method B (the accommodative technique) as being the l e s s e f f e c t i v e one, and that, of these, a s i g n i f i c a n t l y large number indicate that i t would not be successful because nominees subjected to i t would refuse to abandon t h e i r i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n s . I t i s obvious from the table that t h i s does not prove to be the case. A l l i n a l l , then, the hypothesis received a good deal of support, but not enough to c l e a r l y confirm i t . 4-. Hypothesis 2 ( x i i ) [Questions 62-63; Tables XXXI - XXXII] focused upon nominee perception of the p r e s s , a n d t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h i s on t h e i r b e h a v i o u r . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e p r e s s w o u l d be p e r c e i v e d b y t h e n o m i n e e s as t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e r o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n a b o u t t h e d i s p u t e , a n d w o u l d t h e r e f o r e c o n s t i t u t e f o r t h e n o m i n e e s a s o u r c e o f p r e s s u r e t o w a r d a g r e e m e n t . T a b l e XXXI shows t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h r e s p o n d e n t s t h i n k n o m i n e e s t e n d t o r e g a r d t h e p r e s s a s t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e r o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n a b o u t t h e d i s p u t e . N e a r l y t w i c e a s many n o m i n e e s (40.0% v e r s u s 21.8%) f e e l t h i s i s t r u e o f most o r a l l n o m i n e e s as f e e l i t i s t r u e o f few o r n o n e , a n d t h i s f i r s t p o r t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s may be r e g a r d e d a s s u b s t a n t i a l l y t r u e . T a b l e X X X I I d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t t h e p r e s s i s a s o u r c e o f p r e s s u r e on them t o w a r d t h e i r r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t . T h i s , t h e p r i n c i p a l p o r t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s , i s d e c i s i v e l y d e f e a t e d b y a s c o r e o f 9«1% v e r s u s 4 3 . 6 % . A number o f p e r s o n s commented t h a t t h e p r e s s w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a p r e s s u r e s o m e t i m e s , b u t o n l y when t h e d i s p u t e was a v e r y i m p o r t a n t o n e — p r e s u m a b l y t o t h e economy, a n d , i n r e t r o s p e c t , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e d i s p u t e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d e x p l i c i t l y i n t h e q u e s t i o n s . I t was i m p l i e d , i n t h a t t h e a u t h o r assumed t h a t t h e p r e s s c o u l d n o t be a n i n f l u e n c e , o r a p r e s s u r e t o w a r d a g r e e m e n t , u n l e s s i t i n t e r -e s t e d i t s e l f i n t h e d i s p u t e t o t h e e x t e n t o f w r i t i n g a b o u t i t , a n d p r e s u m a b l y i t w o u l d do t h i s o n l y i n t h e c a s e o f d i s p u t e s i t c o n s i d e r e d i m p o r t a n t t o t h e economy. However, t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s was n o t s t a t e d e x p l i c i t l y c o u l d h a v e c o n f u s e d a number o f r e s p o n d e n t s , a n d i n d e e d , s e v e r a l comments s u g g e s t e d t h a t i t may h a v e c o n f u s e d a f e w r e s p o n d e n t s . A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n s e t o Q u e s t i o n 62 ( T a b l e X X X I ) , h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e s f a i r l y c l e a r l y , i n t h e a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n , t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s u n d e r s t o o d t h e q u e s t i o n as t h e a u t h o r i n t e n d e d t h e y s h o u l d . I n s u m m a t i o n , t h e n , a l t h o u g h n o m i n e e s seem t o a g r e e t h a t t h e p r e s s i s t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e r o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n a b o u t t h e d i s p u t e , t h i s d o e s n o t , as a r u l e , mean t h a t t h e p r e s s c o n s t i t u t e s a p r e s s u r e on t h e n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t , and t h e h y p o -t h e s i s c a n n o t be a c c e p t e d . 5. H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i i i ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 64—65; T a b l e s X X X I I I - X X X I V ] c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t o f c o m m u n i t y s i z e o n nominee r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n s . I t was h e l d t h a t , when a d i s p u t e h a s o c c u r r e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l c o m m u n i t y , and when b o t h n o m i n e e s a r e members o f t h a t c o m m u n i t y , b o t h n o m i n e e s w i l l p e r c e i v e t h e i r r o l e s as r e q u i r i n g more c o n c i l i a t o r y b e h a v i o u r t h a n w o u l d t h e i r u r b a n c o u n t e r p a r t s . Q u e s t i o n 64-(a) p r e s e n t s t h e h y p o t h e s i s i n t h e f o r m o f a q u e s t i o n and a s k s r e s p o n d e n t s f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s o n how o f t e n i t w o u l d be t r u e . The r e s u l t s , g i v e n i n T a b l e X X X I I I , c l e a r l y c o n f i r m t h e h y p o t h e s i s b y a s c o r e o f 4-5.5% v e r s u s 19*9%. A m a r k e d c l e a v a g e o f o p i n i o n e x i s t s , h o w e v e r , i n t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s much more s t r o n g l y t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s . A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , make l i b e r a l 100 use, on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, of the argument that the o l d agreement should he maintained, or one as close as possible to i t adopted, i n order that the p u b l i c not s u f f e r by v i r t u e of the p r i c e increases that wage increases w i l l necessitate, or s u f f e r the serious d i s r u p t i o n of a s t r i k e , whereas unions are, i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , steeled against such arguments and strongly u n w i l l i n g to weaken t h e i r cases by granting such arguments legitimate status. Those who f e l t that the hypothesis was, i n general, true, were asked to indicate why. Their comments supported, by and large, the r a t i o n a l e f o r the h y p o t h e s i s — t h a t nominees would be more l i k e l y to reach agreement because the industry concerned would, i n a small community, account f o r a l a r g e r percentage of the employment than would be l i k e l y i n a r e l a t i v e l y large community, and p u b l i c opinion i n the com-munity would therefore exert a considerable pressure f o r agreement. An e f f o r t was made, by means of Question 65, to determine whether, when an i n d u s t r i a l dispute i n a small community comes before a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board, the nominees are u s u a l l y residents or non-residents of the community. As can be seen from Table XXXIV, the response was a rather mixed one; i t appears that Boards i n such communities do not, with any great frequency, have both nominees from the community. Several f a c t o r s suggest that sometimes a mixed case, i n which the employer nominee w i l l be a resident of the community, an d t h e u n i o n n o m inee a n o n - r e s i d e n t , o c c u r s : a number o f comments a t t e s t e d t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n , b u t no m e n t i o n was made o f t h e c o n v e r s e p o s s i b i l i t y , a n d more e m p l o y e r t h a n u n i o n n o m i n e e s f e l t t h a t t h e two n o m i n e e s were u s u a l l y r e s i d e n t s , w h e r e a s more u n i o n t h a n e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s f e l t t h a t t h e two n o m i n e e s were u s u a l l y n o n - r e s i d e n t s T h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s s u g g e s t that., when a \" m i x e d \" c a s e o c c u r s , i t c o n s i s t s n e a r l y a l w a y s o f a r e s i d e n t e m p l o y e r nominee a n d a n o n - r e s i d e n t u n i o n n o m i n e e . W h e t h e r o r n o t a r e s i d e n t n o m i n e e , when f a c e d w i t h a n o n - r e s i d e n t c o u n t e r p a r t , w o u l d be s u b j e c t e d t o t h e p r e s s u r e s w i t h w h i c h t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , i s c o n c e r n e d , must r e m a i n a m y s t e r y . I t seems most p r o b a b l e t o t h e a u t h o r t h a t t h e same p r e s s u r e s w o u l d b e a r u pon t h e r e s i d e n t n o m i n e e , b u t t h a t t h e i r e f f e c t u p o n h i m , a n d u p o n t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s e s o f t h e B o a r d , w o u l d be much r e d u c e d . I n summation, w h i l e t h e h y p o t h e s i s a p p e a r s t o o p e r a t e when t h e c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i s i t e t o i t o c c u r , i t seems e v i d e n t t h a t t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y f r e q u e n t . 6. H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i v ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 66-67; T a b l e s XXXV - XXXVI] c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e t o n e o f p a s t b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s on t h e t y p e o f nominee c h o s e n . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i f t h e t o n e w h i c h h a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e two d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s i n 102 the past has been one of h o s t i l i t y and/or contempt, then nominees w i l l be chosen f o r t h e i r tough p a r t i s a n s h i p . Given such a b a r g a i n i n g h i s t o r y , and such nominees, i t was f e l t t h a t b a r g a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s would be conducted by the nominees as a form of warfare, the motive behind which was as much d e s i r e to weaken the other group as i t was to g a i n concessions f o r one's own group. Question 66 o u t l i n e d these circumstances and asked whether or not such a \"warfare\" concept would p r e v a i l under them. The r e s u l t s of t h i s query, given i n Table XXXV, supported the h y p o t h e s i s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , i n the o p i n i o n of the m a j o r i t y , t h i s concept would indeed p r e v a i l under these circumstances. Employer nominees support t h i s i d e a more s t r o n g l y , however, than do union nominees, a s i t u a t i o n which, i n the author's o p i n i o n , probably means t h a t employer nominees are more prone t o behave i n t h i s way. Table XXXVI g i v e s the r e s u l t s of a q u e s t i o n a s k i n g f o r respondents' o p i n i o n s as t o how l i k e l y the p a r t i e s are, when t h e i r past b a r g a i n i n g has i n v o l v e d a good d e a l of h o s t i l i t y and contempt, to p i c k nominees who w i l l f e e l i t t h e i r duty to be f a i r l y uncompromising. The r e s u l t s give the hypothesis s t r o n g support. The t a b l e shows t h a t employer nominees support the h y p o t h e s i s more s t r o n g l y than do union nominees, which may be construed t o mean t h a t t h i s behaviour i s more t y p i c a l of employer nominees. 7. Hypothesis 2*(xvii)''' [Questions 69-70; Tables XXXVII - XXXVIII] d e a l t w i t h the use by the chairman 103 of the q u a l i t y of the evidence presented by the p a r t i e s as a lever to agreement. I t was hypothesized that a chairman would bring pressure to achieve agreement to bear upon the nominee whose party has presented the poorer evidence, through the use of the superior evidence. Table XXXVII gives the r e s u l t s of an enquiry as to how frequently, i n disputes before C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, one side presents evidence that i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y superior to the evidence presented by the other side. The response indicates that t h i s i s the case the majority of the time. Table XXXVIII indicates that, when t h i s i s the case, chairmen w i l l u s u a l l y use the better evidence to t r y to persuade the nominee representing the party with the poorer evidence to change his p o s i t i o n and come t o , or nearer t o , agreement with the other nominee. Employer nominees seem to be l i e v e , somewhat more strongly than do union nominees, that t h i s w i l l be the case. This could mean that t h i s i s more l i k e l y to be so i f the superior evidence i s possessed by the employer, but t h i s i s merely, i t should be understood, a speculation. In summation, then, the data indicate that the hypothesis should be accepted. 8. Hypothesis 3 ( i ) stated that factors (a), (b) and (c) ( c i t e d i n i t ) were the decisive ones determining the outcome of the chairman's e f f o r t s to achieve agreement between the two nominees. As factors (a) and (c) were included i n the \"External\" category, they w i l l be dealt with below; f a c t o r (b) was c l a s s i f i e d i n the \"Internal\" category, and w i l l therefore be discussed i n that section. A d e c i s i o n about the e n t i r e hypothesis w i l l be reached a f t e r f a c t o r (b) has been discussed. (a) [Questions 7 3 - 7 6 ; Tables XXXIX - XLII] held that the l e g a l requirement of party-nominated representatives i s functional, to the goal of agreement between the nominees i n that i t r e s u l t s i n i n t e r - p a r t y communication with reference to the p o s i t i o n of each. I t can hence make known to each nominee what the other i s w i l l i n g to grant or accept i n each matter i n dispute. This knowledge was viewed, i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , as the most important necessary condition to reaching agreement. Nominees agreed, by a great majority, that nominees and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s generally communicated with each other d i r e c t l y and frequently from the time of the nominee's appointment u n t i l the Board issues i t s report (see Table XXXIX). A s u b s t a n t i a l majority also agreed (see Table XL) that t h i s communication tended, generally, to increase the chances of the two nominees reaching agreement. Respondents were asked f o r t h e i r opinions as to how often i t was necessary f o r each nominee to have a f a i r l y accurate picture of what the other nominee i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g to grant or to accept so f a r as each matter being disputed i s concerned, before the two nominees can reach agreement. The r e s u l t s , given i n Table XLI, confirm overwhelmingly the idea that t h i s knowledge i s u s u a l l y 105 n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e a g r e e m e n t c a n be r e a c h e d . T a b l e X L I I d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t a l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s f e e l t h a t t h i s k n o w l e d g e i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t c o n d i t i o n n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t . H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) ( a ) t h u s a p p e a r s t o be d e c i s i v e l y c o n f i r m e d . ( c ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 79-84-; T a b l e s X L I I I - X L V I I ] h e l d t h a t t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f p a r t y - n o m i n a t e d r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e s was d y s f u n c t i o n a l t o t h e g o a l o f n o m i n e e s r e a c h i n g o r a p p r o a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t i n t h a t i t i n t r o d u c e d t h e f a c t o r o f p a r t i s a n s h i p . Q u e s t i o n s 79 a n d 80 a s k e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h e t h e r o r n o t e m p l o y e r s , a n d w h e t h e r o r n o t u n i o n s , t e n d t o c h o o s e n o m i n e e s who w i l l be p a r t i s a n a n d r e g a r d t h e i r j o b a s one where t h e g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r p a r t y i s more i m p o r t a n t t h a n r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . T a b l e s X L I I I a n d X L I V i n d i c a t e , b y a m a r k e d m a j o r i t y , t h a t b o t h do s o . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t , w h i l e b o t h f e e l , t o t h e same e x t e n t , t h a t u n i o n s do s o , more u n i o n t h a n e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t e m p l o y e r s do s o . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e more r e l u c t a n t t h a n a r e u n i o n n o m i n e e s t o a d m i t t o t h i s . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d ( Q u e s t i o n 81) i f t h e y f e l t t h a t t h e r e were n o m i n e e s who were s y m p a t h e t i c t o t h e w e l f a r e a n d i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r p a r t i e s , a n d , i f s o , t o s t a t e what t h e y t h o u g h t t h e m a i n r e a s o n s f o r t h i s s y m p a t h y w e r e . The commonest appears to be membership i n the same economic community as one's nominator, which gives one personal knowledge of, and sympathy with, the problems of one's nominator. Table XLVII gives the results of a question asking nominees whether they thought that, i f a nominee were not paid by his parjy for his services as a nominee, that he would tend to be less partisan, and less an advocate of his party's welfare and interests. The results indicate that payment (meaning payment in addition to expenses) i s not an i n f l u e n t i a l factor so far as partisanship i s con-cerned, and comments appended to the question indicate that i t i s not a factor because i t rarely occurs: union nominees, the comments indicate, are never paid (the higher union non-response rate lends this conclusion further support), and, of the employer nominees, only lawyers and industrial relations consultants appear to be paid. The fact that a greater number of employer nominees feel that, i f employer nominees were not paid, they would be less partisan, i s probably attributable to the employer nominees who are lawyers and industrial relations consultants. Respondents were also asked i f a party i s generally able to get i t s nominee to do what the party wants on the Conciliation Board. The data, given i n Table XLV, indicate that this i s usually the case. The composite picture which emerges would seem to 1 0 7 support the hypothesis. However, a d i r e c t question as to whether i t i s better, f o r e f f e c t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n , i f nominees are i m p a r t i a l , or p a r t i s a n (that i s , advocates of t h e i r p a r t i e s ) , was regarded as a necessary t e s t of the hypothesis, and Table XLVI gives the r e s u l t s , showing, s u r p r i s i n g l y enough that, by a small margin, more respondents fe e l , that p a r t i s a n nominees provide more e f f e c t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n than f e e l that i m p a r t i a l nominees do. Comments suggest the reason i s that, when the nominees are p a r t i s a n , and serving as advocates of t h e i r p a r t i e s , more information p e r t a i n i n g to the dispute i s l i k e l y to be brought, by both sides, to the a t t e n t i o n of the Board, which i s more l i k e l y to produce a s a t i s f a c t o r y com-promise, as well as a Board that both p a r t i e s can t r u s t . This information d i r e c t l y contravenes the hypothesis. However, almost as many persons (36.4% versus 43.6%) favoured i m p a r t i a l nominees f o r the most e f f e c t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n because they f e l t that such nominees would adhere to the evidence more r e a d i l y , and reach unanimous decisions more easily,which t presumably (at l e a s t i n the opinion of t h i s group of respondents), would u s u a l l y be accepted by the disputing p a r t i e s . In terms of a simple majority of the vote, then, the hypothesis i s correct i n s t a t i n g that partisanship, r e s u l t i n g i n a high degree of c o n t r o l of the nominees by t h e i r p a r t i e s , p r e v a i l s , and, i n terms of the single response-category r e c e i v i n g the greatest support, i n c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n r e s u l t s i n l e s s e f f e c t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n t h a n w o u l d o c c u r were t h e n o m i n e e s i m p a r t i a l . However, t h e f a c t t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f r e s p o n d e n t s e x p r e s s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i s a n s h i p o f n o m i n e e s b y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i m p a r t i a l n o m i n e e s w o u l d r e s u l t i n more e f f e c t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n , o f f e r s c o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t , w h i l e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s d i v i d e t h e i r v o t e s e v e n l y b e t w e e n i m p a r t i a l i t y a n d p a r t i s a n s h i p , t w i c e a s many u n i o n n o m i n e e s f a v o u r p a r t i s a n s h i p as f a v o u r i m p a r t i a l i t y . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t u n i o n s t e n d t o r e g a r d t h e m s e l v e s a s a n e m b a t t l e d g r o u p who f e e l t h a t t h e i r d e s i r e s a r e u n l i k e l y t o be met on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s u n l e s s t h e y e n l i s t t h e s e r v i c e s o f a n ominee who w i l l r e p r e s e n t them a s an a d v o c a t e . F a c t o r s 3 ( i ) ( a ) and 3 ( i ) ( c ) have b e e n d e a l t w i t h a b o v e , b u t t h e t h i r d a n d f i n a l f a c t o r o f t h e t h r e e , 3 ( i ) ( b ) , must be d e a l t w i t h b e l o w i n t h e I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s s e c t i o n , i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r w h i c h t h e h y p o t h e s i s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y . 9. H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i i ) [ Q u e s t i o n 85; T a b l e X L V I I I ] f o c u s e d u p o n t h e e f f e c t o f n ominee p a r t i s a n s h i p u p o n h i s q u e s t i o n i n g t e c h n i q u e . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t n o m i n e e s w o u l d u s e a t e c h n i q u e o f a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s much o f w h i c h was p a r t i s a n i n t h a t i t was d e s i g n e d t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e p a r t y t h e n o m i n e e r e p r e s e n t s , a n d h e n c e h i s own p o s i t i o n , and weaken t h a t of the other nominee and h i s p a r t y . The h y p o t h e s i s was s t a t e d i n the form of a q u e s t i o n , and Table XLVIII records the response. As i s apparent from the t a b l e , the h y p o t h e s i s i s overwhelmingly confirmed, which p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r evidence of the p a r t i s a n a t t i t u d e s and behaviour of most nominees. 10. . The e f f e c t of the l e g a l requirement of p a r t y - a p p o i n t e d nominees on nominee r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n was the concern of Hypothesis 3 ( i i i ) [Questions 86-88; Tables XLIX -L I I ] . I t was hypothesized t h a t each nominee would p e r c e i v e h i s a p p r o p r i a t e r o l e as c o n s i s t i n g p r i n c i p a l l y i n the two f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n Hypotheses 3 ( i ) (a) and 3 ( i ) (c) a b o v e — t h a t i s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n attempting t o f i n d out what the other p a r t y i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g to grant or to accept, and i n attempting t o p r o t e c t , to the g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e e x t e n t , the i n t e r e s t s of the p a r t y he r e p r e s e n t s . A q u e s t i o n which i n c o r p o r a t e d the t a s k d e s c r i b e d i n 3 ( i ) (c) prompted the response recorded i n Table XLIX, from which i t i s c l e a r t h a t the v a s t m a j o r i t y of nominees perform t h i s t a s k . Question 86(b) and Table L i n d i c a t e t h a t more respondents r e g a r d i t as the most important p a r t of a nominee's job than h o l d any other s i n g l e o p i n i o n of those o f f e r e d on the s c a l e , and the b u l k of the remaining respondents r e g a r d i t as q u i t e important. This p o r t i o n of Hypothesis 3 ( i i i ) can thus be regarded as confirmed. The data given i n Table L may suggest, to a s m a l l e x t e n t , t h a t 110 r e l a t i v e l y s u c c e s s f u l a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h i s t a s k i s more i m p o r t a n t t o e m p l o y e r s t h a n i t i s t o u n i o n s , p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s p e r c e i v e t h a t an a g r e e m e n t t h a t was t o o much i n f a v o u r o f t h e u n i o n c o u l d d r i v e an e m p l o y e r o u t o f b u s i n e s s , w h e r e a s u n i o n s a r e n o t f a c e d w i t h s o d r a s t i c a s a n c t i o n s h o u l d a n a g r e e m e n t be c o n c l u d e d t h a t t e n d e d t o f a v o u r t h e e m p l o y e r . The t a s k d e s c r i b e d i n H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i ) ( a ) above was p r e s e n t e d t o r e s p o n d e n t s i n q u e s t i o n f o r m , w i t h t h e r e s u l t s r e c o r d e d i n T a b l e L I , An o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y d e c l a r e d t h a t n o m i n e e s a t t e m p t e d t o g e t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d T a b l e L I I i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s i s r e g a r d e d a s a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e n o m i n e e ' s j o b . U n i o n n o m i n e e s f e l t , f a r more s t r o n g l y t h a n d i d e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , t h a t t h i s was t h e most i m p o r t a n t j o b o f t h e n o m i n e e . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e t h a t t h i s v a r i a t i o n i n o p i n i o n i s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e r a t h e r f r e q u e n t u n i o n a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t e m p l o y e r s a r e u n w i l l i n g t o p l a c e t h e i r r e a l e c o n o m i c p o s i t i o n b e f o r e t h e B o a r d — t h a t t h e y a r e , i n s h o r t , s e c r e t i v e and d i s h o n e s t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e c o n o m i c e v i d e n c e w h i c h t h e y p r e s e n t i n t h e i r b r i e f s t o t h e B o a r d , and t h a t u n i o n s t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r t h e ob-t a i n i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n a s t o what t h e o t h e r p a r t y i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g t o s e t t l e f o r more i m p o r t a n t t h a n do e m p l o y e r s . Q u e s t i o n 88 r e q u e s t e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s l i s t , a nd r a n k i n o r d e r o f i m p o r t a n c e , t h e t a s k s w h i c h , i n t h e i r I l l o p i n i o n , most p a r t i e s f e e l t h a t t h e i r n o m i nee s h o u l d , i f p o s s i b l e , p e r f o r m when he r e p r e s e n t s them on a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s q u e s t i o n was t h a t i f t h e two t a s k s w i t h w h i c h t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d a r e r a n k e d f i r s t and s e c o n d i n i m p o r t a n c e more o f t e n t h a n a r e a n y o t h e r t a s k s w h i c h a r e r a n k e d , t h e n n o m i n e e s w o u l d , a s t h e h y p o t h e s i s r e q u i r e s , c o n s i d e r t h e s e a s t h e i r p r i n c i p a l , o r most i m p o r t a n t , t a s k s i n t h e i r r o l e as n o m i n e e s . The t a s k r e f e r r e d t o i n 3 ( i ) ( c ) r e c e i v e d t h e most r a n k i n g s i n f i r s t a n d s e c o n d p o s i t i o n o f i m p o r t a n c e , and t h a t r e f e r r e d t o i n 3 ( i ) ( a ) r e c e i v e d t h e s e c o n d g r e a t e s t number o f r a n k i n g s i n f i r s t a n d s e c o n d p o s i t i o n , t h u s c o n f i r m i n g t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a s s e m b l e d a b o v e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t a l l a s p e c t s o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s h a v e b e e n s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t e d , w h i c h i n d i c a t e s u n e q u i v o c a l l y t h a t i t s h o u l d be a c c e p t e d . 11. P a r t y e v a l u a t i o n o f n o m i n e e p e r f o r m a n c e i n t e r m s o f t h e f a c t o r s d e s c r i b e d i n H y p o t h e s e s 3 ( i ) ( a ) a n d 3 ( i ) ( c ) a b o v e , and t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s e v a l u a t i o n on nominee b e h a v i o u r , i s t h e f o c u s o f H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i v ) [ Q u e s t i o n 89; T a b l e s L I U - L I V ] . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a n o m i n e e ' s p e r f o r m a n c e w o u l d be e v a l u a t e d b y t h e p a r t y he r e p r e s e n t s i n t e r m s o f t h e s k i l l w i t h w h i c h he manages t o p e r f o r m t h e s e two f u n c t i o n s , a n d t h a t t h i s w i l l c o n s t i t u t e a p r e s s u r e 112 t o w a r d a n o m i n e e ' s b e h a v i n g i n t h i s manner. R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e y t h o u g h t t h a t p a r t i e s g e n e r a l l y t e n d t o j u d g e t h e s k i l l o f t h e i r n ominee i n t e r m s o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h he s u c c e e d s i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e s e t a s k s . The r e s u l t s , g i v e n i n T a b l e L I I I , i n d i c a t e , b y a l a r g e m a j o r i t y , t h a t p a r t i e s do s o . 'A q u e s t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r p a r t i e s who t e n d t o j u d g e t h e s k i l l o f t h e i r n o m i n e e s i n t h i s way b r i n g p r e s s u r e t o b e a r on them t o c o n c e r n t h e m s e l v e s m a i n l y w i t h t h e s e t a s k s p r o d u c e d t h e r e s u l t s shown i n T a b l e L I V ; a g a i n , a m a j o r i t y a g r e e t h a t p a r t i e s do s o . Comments s u g g e s t t h a t p a r t i e s e x p e c t t h e i r nominee t o b e h a v e i n t h i s way w i t h o u t i t b e i n g n e c e s s a r y f o r them t o b r i n g p r e s s u r e t o b e a r u p o n h i m t o do s o , b e c a u s e t h e y t e n d t o s e l e c t a n o m inee whom t h e y f e e l w i l l a g r e e w i t h t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . T h i s may e x p l a i n why t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n i n T a b l e L I V i s somewhat r e d u c e d c o m pared t o t h a t i n T a b l e L I I I . A t a n y r a t e , t h e r e s u l t s s e t f o r t h i n t h e s e two t a b l e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s s h o u l d be a c c e p t e d . A r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g d i s p a r i t y i n o p i n i o n a p p e a r s i n T a b l e L I V : more e m p l o y e r t h a n u n i o n n o m i n e e s a p p e a r a t t h e \" a l l - m a j o r i t y \" e n d o f t h e s c a l e . T h i s c o u l d m e a n — a l t h o u g h , a d m i t t e d l y , t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y l a r g e — t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e s u b j e c t e d , b y t h e i r p a r t i e s , t o more p r e s s u r e t o p e r f o r m t h e s e t a s k s t h a n a r e u n i o n n o m i n e e s . T h i s c l e a v a g e w o u l d seem t o be c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h a t n o t e d i n T a b l e L i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h H y p o t h e s i s 3 ( i i i ) , where i t was s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e t a s k o f g e t t i n g t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e s e t t l e m e n t f o r o n e ' s p a r t y seems t o be r e g a r d e d more i n t e n s e l y b y e m p l o y e r s as an i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e n o m i n e e ' s j o b , p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e o f t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s e v e r e h a n d i c a p w h i c h a t o o u n f a v o u r a b l e a g r e e m e n t c o u l d i m p o s e u p o n a n e m p l o y e r . 12. H y p o t h e s i s 4-(i) [ Q u e s t i o n s 99-102; T a b l e s L V -L I X ] was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t on t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e c h a i r m a n t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e two n o m i n e e s a r e u n w i l l i n g t o a g r e e , t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d be a m a j o r i t y d e c i s i o n p l a c e s l i m i t a t i o n s u p o n t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e c h a i r m a n t o p u t p r e s s u r e u p o n t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e . B e c a u s e t h e c h a i r m a n h a s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , where u n a n i m i t y i s n o t a c h i e v e d , o f i s s u i n g a d e c i s i o n i n t h e f o r m o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , i t i s p o s s i b l e , p r e s u m a b l y , f o r e a c h nominee t o p u t p r e s s u r e u p o n t h e c h a i r m a n t o come t o one o r t h e o t h e r o f t h e i r o p p o s e d p o s i t i o n s i f t h e y r e m a i n r e l a t i v e l y f a r a p a r t a n d adamant, i n w h i c h c a s e he c a n n o t u s e t h e i r d e s i r e t o be i n on a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t t o p l a y one a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r a n d t h u s g e t tliem t o s h i f t n e a r e r t o one a n o t h e r . The a s s u m p t i o n t h a t n o m i n e e s who a r e f a r a p a r t a n d adamant w i l l p u t p r e s s u r e on a c h a i r m a n t o come t o one o r t h e o t h e r o f t h e i r o p p o s e d p o s i t i o n s i s b a s e d on t h e f u r t h e r a s s u m p t i o n t h a t n o m i n e e s , i n g e n e r a l , w o u l d p r e f e r t o s i g n a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t w i t h t h e c h a i r m a n r a t h e r t h a n t o s u b m i t a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t . T h i s a s s u m p t i o n was p h r a s e d i n t h e f o r m o f a q u e s t i o n , t h e r e s u l t s o f w h i c h a p p e a r i n T a b l e LV; t h e a s s u m p t i o n i s c o n f i r m e d b y a n o v e r w h e l m i n g l y m a j o r i t y . Comments i n d i c a t e t h a t a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t i s r e g a r d e d as more d e s i r a b l e t h a n a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t b e c a u s e i t t e n d s t o e s t a b l i s h . t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f t h e B o a r d ( t h a t i s , one nominee a n d a p r e s u m a b l y i m p a r t i a l c h a i r m a n ) c o n s i d e r one p r i n c i p a l t o be r i g h t f u l l y a s k i n g c o n c e s s i o n s , w h i c h h a s t h e e f f e c t o f s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e \" m a j o r i t y \" p a r t y w h i l e m a k i n g t h a t o f t h e \" m i n o r i t y \" p a r t y l o o k weak. R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o s u p p o s e t h a t a c h a i r m a n h a s t r i e d t o g e t t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e b u t t h a t t h e n o m i n e e s , b e c a u s e o f t h e i r c o n c e r n f o r t h e w e l f a r e a n d i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r p a r t i e s , f e e l t h a t i t i s t h e i r , d u t y t o h o l d t h e i r p o s i t i o n s f i r m l y , a n d have so f a r r e f u s e d t o c o m p r o m i s e . How f r e q u e n t l y do c h a i r m e n g e n e r a l l y s u c c e e d i n g e t t i n g two n o m i n e e s i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n t o a g r e e ? N o minees' o p i n i o n s on t h i s q u e s t i o n a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e L V I ; a s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r number o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t , i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , a c h a i r m a n s e l d o m s u c c e e d s i n a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t t h a n f e e l t h a t he u s u a l l y d o e s s u c c e e d . What c a n a c h a i r m a n do, i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , t o t.ry t o g e t t h e n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e ? Many s u g g e s t i o n s a r e made, b u t i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e o n l y ones upon w h i c h more t h a n one o r two p e r s o n s agree are n o t s o l u t i o n s w h i c h l e a d t o u n a n i m i t y a t a l l : s i x p e r s o n s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n c o u l d t a k e a p o s i t i o n i n t e r m e d i a t e t o t h o s e o f t h e nominees, i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s i s what he t h i n k s i s a f a i r s e t t l e m e n t , and ask them w h i c h one w i l l go a l o n g w i t h him, and u s u a l l y one w i l l ; t e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t he s h o u l d s i g n a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t w i t h t h e nominee whose p o s i t i o n i s c l o s e s t t o h i s own t h i n k i n g , and s i x s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h r e e m i n o r i t y r e p o r t s he s u b m i t t e d . These t h r e e were the o n l y p r o f f e r e d s o l u t i o n s w h i c h r e c e i v e d any p a r t i c u l a r s u p p o r t , and, o f c o u r s e , none a r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h e q u e s t i o n because t h e y do n o t r e s u l t i n agreement between t h e nominees. T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e t h a t a c h a i r m a n c a n do t o a c h i e v e agreement under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s . R espondents who f e l t t h a t a c h a i r m a n f a c e d w i t h two nominees who are r e f u s i n g t o compromise would n o t u s u a l l y have much chance o f g e t t i n g t h e two nominees t o agree were a s k e d whether t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e i r adamancy was t h a t t h e y w i s h t o p r o t e c t t h e b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n o f t h e i r p a r t y more t h a n t h e y w i s h t o g e t i n on a unanimous o r a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , w h i c h would p r o b a b l y r e q u i r e a change i n t h i s b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n . The r e s u l t s , g i v e n i n T a b l e L V I I , i n d i c a t e t h a t a v e r y l a r g e m a j o r i t y b e l i e v e t h i s t o be t h e r e a s o n most o f t h e t i m e . The f a c t t h a t more employer nominees t h a n u n i o n nominees f e l t t h a t t h i s was a l m o s t always t h e r e a s o n s u g g e s t s 116 once again—although, once again, too, the difference i s s m a l l — t h a t employer nominees are somewhat more c l o s e l y t i e d to the wishes of t h e i r party than are union.nominees. A large majority of nominees (61.8% versus 9.1%) f e l t that when the nominees are u n w i l l i n g to compromise, a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board i s not able to do much to s e t t l e a dispute between two p a r t i e s (see Table LVIII), and, furt h e r , a marked majority (56.4% versus 9*1%) ind i c a t e d that, when the nominees are u n w i l l i n g to compromise, the accommodative chairman i s forced, the majority of the time, to sign a majority report which favours one side or the other (see Table LIX). In summation, then, i t appears that, when disputing p a r t i e s consider i t e s s e n t i a l that t h e i r bargaining p o s i t i o n be maintained with a l o t of bargaining room, the usual desire of nominees to achieve unanimous or majority awards, and hence to compromise, becomes secondary to t h i s requirement, and nominees hold adamantly p o s i t i o n s that are f a r apart. This s i t u a t i o n as a rule renders an accommodative chairman r e l a t i v e l y helpless to bring about agreement between them, and he w i l l simply be forced to sign a report which markedly favours one side or the other, and hence w i l l be quite u n l i k e l y to s e t t l e the dispute. The hypothesis must hence be regarded as confirmed. 13. Hypothesis 4 ( i i ) [Question 103; Table LX] c o n c e r n e d i t s e l f w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t on t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s . I t was h y p o -t h e s i z e d t h a t , s h o u l d t h e c h a i r m a n v i e w h i s r o l e a s t h a t o f c o n c i l i a t o r b y n o r m a t i v e means, he w i l l , where t h e s i t u a t i o n a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d i n H y p o t h e s i s 4-(i) above a r i s e s ( t h a t i s , where t h e n o m i n e e s a r e adamant, and f a r a p a r t ) be c a p a b l e o f e x e r t i n g e v e n l e s s p r e s s u r e t o w a r d a g r e e m e n t t h a n t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e l y c o n c i l i a t o r y c h a i r m a n , f o r he w i l l s i m p l y be f o r c e d , f o r r e a s o n s a l r e a d y o u t l i n e d i n C h a p t e r I I , t o s i g n w i t h w h i c h e v e r p a r t y h a p p e n s t o be c l o s e r , i n h i s v i e w , t o t h e p o s i t i o n he f e e l s t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , o r a j u s t s e t t l e m e n t — o r w h a t e v e r n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i o n he i s u s i n g — r e q u i r e s . The c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d t h e c o n c i l i a t o r y t e c h n i q u e o f t h e c h a i r m a n , h a v i n g b e e n o u t l i n e d , r e s p o n d e n t s were q u e r i e d a s t o w h e t h e r s u c h a c h a i r m a n , i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , w o u l d s i m p l y be f o r c e d t o s i g n w i t h w h i c h e v e r nominee he f e e l s i s c l o s e r t o t h e p o s i t i o n r e q u i r e d b y t h e s t a n d a r d he i s a p p l y i n g t o t h e d i s p u t e . T a b l e LX shows t h a t a m a r k e d l y g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n (60.0% v e r s u s 7-2%) s u p p o r t t h e h y p o -t h e s i s , and i t may t h e r e f o r e be a c c e p t e d . 14. The e f f e c t o f d e c i s i o n s o f o t h e r C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s on t h e r o l e - c o n c e p t i o n s , b e h a v i o u r , and d e c i s i o n o f t h e p e r s o n n e l o f an o p e r a t i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f o c u s o f H y p o t h e s i s F i v e [ Q u e s t i o n s 104 - 1 0 5 ; T a b l e L X I ] a n d i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t p a t t e r n s w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r v a r i o u s t r a d e s and i n d u s t r i e s b y C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , when a c o l l e c t i v e a g r e e m e n t d i s p u t e a r i s e s i n t h e s e t r a d e s o r i n d u s t r i e s , o r i n t r a d e s o r i n d u s t r i e s r e g a r d e d a s c o m p a r a b l e , t h e r e p o r t o f t h e B o a r d a t t e m p t i n g t o c o n c i l i a t e t h i s d i s p u t e w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e e s t a b l i s h e d p a t t e r n i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e p a t t e r n . How f r e q u e n t l y a r e d e c i s i o n s o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e d e c i s i o n s o f a p r e v i o u s C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d o r B o a r d s ? The d a t a s u p p l i e d b y T a b l e L X I i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s i s so m a r k e d l y more o f t e n t h a n n o t ( 4 0 . 0 % v e r s u s 1 0 . 8 % ) . R e s p o n d e n t s who f e l t t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n s o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s were e v e r i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e d e c i s i o n s o f p r e v i o u s C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s were a s k e d what t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s i n f l u e n c e w e r e . By a n o v e r -w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y , r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was one r e a s o n : a p a t t e r n h a d b e e n b u i l t up i n t h e i n d u s t r y o r i n a s i m i l a r i n d u s t r y b y p r e v i o u s C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , a n d s u b s e q u e n t B o a r d s t e n d t o f o l l o w t h i s p a t t e r n b e c a u s e , i f t h e y do s o , t h e i r d e c i s i o n h a s a g o od c h a n c e o f b e i n g a c c e p t e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s . The h y p o t h e s i s i s t h u s s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t e d . 15. H y p o t h e s i s S i x [ Q u e s t i o n s 106-107; T a b l e s L X I I - L X I I I ] p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t e r l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t w i l l be a c c e p t e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s t h a n w i l l a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , w h i c h i s l i k e l y t o be r e j e c t e d b y t h e p a r t y whose nominee s u b m i t t e d a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was f o r m u l a t e d and t e s t e d b e c a u s e i t s e r v e s t o j u s t i f y t h e i n c l u s i o n o f c e r t a i n o t h e r h y p o t h e s e s . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t one o f t h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e s o f t h e t h e s i s was t o a t t e m p t t o d i s c o v e r f a c t o r s p r e s e n t i n t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s w h i c h a r e i n e f f i c i e n t i n t h a t t h e y t e n d t o work a g a i n s t t h e avowed p u r p o s e o f t h e B o a r d — t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . A l l o f t h e s e f a c t o r s — s u c h a s t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e m a j o r i t y d e c i s i o n a n d o f p a r t y s e l e c t i o n o f n o m i n e e s , a n d t h e u s e o f t h e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e o f c o n c i l i a t i o n — t e n d t o l e a d , i t h a s b e e n h y p o t h e s i z e d , t o a l a c k o f a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s and h e n c e t o a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t . B u t t h e c h a r g e o f i n e f f i c i e n c y c a n o n l y be l e v e l l e d a g a i n s t t h e s e f a c t o r s - i f : It i s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t m a j o r i t y r e p o r t s a r e r e l a t i v e l y u n l i k e l y , i n c o m p a r i s o n t o u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t s , t o r e s u l t i n a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . H y p o t h e s i s S i x s e r v e s a s t h e t e s t o f t h i s . I t h a s b e e n c l a s s i f i e d a s a n E x t e r n a l F a c t o r on t h e b a s i s o f t h e a s s u m p t i o n — f o r m u l a t e d as a n a f t e r t h o u g h t ( i n o r d e r t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s m i g h t be c l a s s i f i a b l e i n one o f t h e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s ) a n d t h e r e f o r e n o t , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , t e s t e d i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e — t h a t i t w i l l o p e r a t e a s a p r e s s u r e u p o n t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d p e r s o n n e l t o a g r e e u p o n a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , b e c a u s e , p r e s u m a b l y , t h e y c o n s i d e r t h e ( 120 most d e s i r a b l e f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e i r r o l e s a s b e i n g t o p r o d u c e , where p o s s i b l e , a r e p o r t s a t i s f a c t o r y t o , a n d h e n c e a c c e p t e d b y, b o t h p a r t i e s , and a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , u s u a l l y s t a n d s t h e b e s t c h a n c e o f b e i n g s o . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d i f , i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t i s more l i k e l y t o be a c c e p t e d b y b o t h o f t h e d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s t h a n i s a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t . The r e s u l t s , g i v e n i n T a b l e L X I I , i n d i c a t e , b y a v e r y l a r g e m a j o r i t y (72.8% v e r s u s 1.8%), t h a t t h i s i s t h e c a s e . The a u t h o r t h e n i n q u i r e d as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t w i l l u s u a l l y be r e j e c t e d b y t h e m i n o r i t y p a r t y . T a b l e L X I I I d e m o n s t r a t e s , a g a i n b y a v e r y l a r g e m a j o r i t y , t h a t t h i s i s t h e c a s e . The h y p o t h e s i s may h e n c e be c o n s i d e r e d c o n f i r m e d . The f a c t t h a t f a r more e m p l o y e r t h a n u n i o n n o m i n e e s i n d i -c a t e d t h a t a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t w o u l d u s u a l l y be r e j e c t e d b y t h e m i n o r i t y p a r t y p r o b a b l y means t h a t e m p l o y e r s a r e much more l i k e l y t o r e j e c t a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t s i g n e d b y t h e u n i o n n o m i nee t h a n a r e u n i o n s l i k e l y t o r e j e c t a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t s i g n e d b y t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t e m p l o y e r s p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s a s b e i n g more v u l n e r a b l e t o u n f a v o u r a b l e r e p o r t s , and t i e s i n w i t h p r e v i o u s e v i d e n c e o f a s i m i l a r s o r t . The r e c u r r e n c e o f s i m i l a r e v i d e n c e on t h i s p o i n t r e n d e r s r e a s o n a b l e t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t e m p l o y e r s p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s as b e i n g more v u l n e r a b l e t o u n f a v o u r a b l e r e p o r t s t h a n do u n i o n s , a n d t h a t f o r t h i s r e a s o n t h e y b i n d , more 121 c l o s e l y t h a n do u n i o n s , t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e i r n o m i n e e s t o t h e i r own w i s h e s , a s w e l l as show a g r e a t e r r e l u c t a n c e t h a n do u n i o n s t o a c c e p t a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t s i g n e d b y t h e nominee o f t h e i r a d v e r s a r y . B. I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t , i n C h a p t e r I I , a number o f h y p o t h e s e s — t e n , t o be e x a c t . ; — w e r e r e c l a s s i f i e d u n d e r t h e r u b r i c o f I n t e r n a l F a c t o r s . E a c h o f t h e s e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t u r n b e l o w . 1. H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 3 9 - 4 0 ; T a b l e s L X I V -LXV] p u t f o r w a r d t h e i d e a t h a t two d i s t i n c t c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e r o l e o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m a n e x i s t — t h e n o r m a t i v e r o l e ( r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e as M e t h o d A ) , and t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e r o l e ( r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s M e t h o d B ) . The c h a i r m a n who c o n c e i v e s h i s r o l e a s a p r i m a r i l y n o r m a t i v e one w o u l d a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s b y n o r m a t i v e means ( t h a t i s , b y a s e t o f s t a n d a r d s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c h a i r m a n , w h i c h he c h o o s e s t o d e f i n e b y some n o r m a t i v e s t a n d a r d w h i c h he h o l d s , s u c h a s \" t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , \" o r \" a j u s t s e t t l e m e n t , \" a n d b y r e f e r e n c e t o w h i c h t h e t e r m s o f a g r e e m e n t a r e j u s t i f i e d ) . The c h a i r m a n who c o n c e i v e s h i s r o l e a s a p r i m a r i l y accom-m o d a t i v e one w o u l d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , e n d e a v o u r t o . e f f e c t a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s p r e d o m i n a n t l y b y a c c o m m o d a t i v e means ( t h a t i s , he w o u l d a t t e m p t t o g e t t h e l a b o u r a n d management nominees to reach agreement on any terms which are acceptable to both of them, regardless of what the chairman himself thinks about the j u s t i c e or d e s i r a b i l i t y of these terms). Question 3 9 described two basic approaches to the job of t r y i n g to get the two nominees to agree which could be used by chairmen—Method A (the normative technique) and Method B (the accommodative technique), and asked respondent how frequently they thought these methods were used by C o n c i l i a t i o n Board chairmen. The r e s u l t s , given i n Tables LXIV and LXV, indicate that, when required to choose between the two polar types, respondents indicate that the accommodative method i s used a good deal more frequently than i s the normative\". However, an examination of both tables, as well as of the comments appended by respondents to Question 3 9 , does suggest to some extent that the accommodative method i s the one with which most chairmen begin t h e i r attempt to e f f e c t c o n c i l i a t i o n , but that they resort to the normative when nominees remain u n w i l l i n g to reach agreement under the accommodative technique. I t i s further suggested that the chairman w i l l most commonly derive h i s normative standards, or c r i t e r i a f o r judging which party i s more i n the r i g h t , and which more i n the wrong, from the evidence presented before the Board; more r a r e l y , however, comments suggest, the chairman does come to the Board with preconceived normative standards with r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d i s p u t e . The e n t i r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e i n T a b l e L X I V s i g n i f i e s t h a t more e m p l o y e r t h a n u n i o n n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e i s u s e d r e l a t i v e l y f r e q u e n t l y ; why t h i s s h o u l d be so i s n o t c l e a r . A l l i n a l l , t h e n , t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e two m e t h o d s o f c o n c i l i a t i o n e x i s t a p p e a r s c o n f i r m e d , w i t h a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n p e r c e i v e d as t h e commoner. Comments s u g g e s t , h o w e v e r , t h a t o f t e n i n a n e f f o r t t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t , a c h a i r m a n w i l l e m p l o y b o t h m e t h o d s , i n s e q u e n c e , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e same d i s p u t e . I t seems most r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e — a l t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e i s n o t e x t e n s i v e — t h a t a c h a i r m a n w o u l d most f r e q u e n t l y e m p l o y a c c o m m o d a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n f i r s t , a n d , s h o u l d i t - f a i l , t h e n n o r m a t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n . A g a i n , i t seems most r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e — a l t h o u g h , a g a i n , t h e e v i d e n c e i s s c a n t y — t h a t a c h a i r m a n w o u l d most o f t e n d e r i v e h i s n o r m a t i v e s t a n d a r d , a n d h i s j u d g e m e n t o f w h i c h p a r t y i s more i n t h e r i g h t , and w h i c h more i n t h e w rong, f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e B o a r d b y t h e p a r t i e s . 2. The e f f e c t o f t h e n o r m a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d c h a i r m a n on t h e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e two n o m i n e e s was t h e c o n -c e r n o f H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i i ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 41-45; T a b l e s L X V I -L X V I I I ] . A c h a i r m a n who p e r c e i v e s t h e n o r m a t i v e r o l e a s i n c u m b e n t u p o n h i m w i l l , i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d , t e n d t o m a i n t a i n o r p e r h a p s w i d e n , r a t h e r t h a n r e d u c e , o r e l i m i n a t e , 124-t h e d i s t a n c e s e p a r a t i n g t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e two n o m i n e e s , b e c a u s e s u c h a c h a i r m a n w i l l be p e r c e i v e d , b y one o f t h e n o m i n e e s , a s b i a s e d . The r a t h e r i n v o l v e d r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s h y p o t h e s i s w i l l n o t be r e c a p i t u l a t e d h e r e ; t h e r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o C h a p t e r I I . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d how, i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , n o m i n e e s f e e l a b o u t t h e n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e ( s e e T a b l e L X V I ) t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t , w i t h s u c h a c h a i r m a n , one o r b o t h o f t h e n o m i n e e s w o u l d f e e l t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n was b i a s e d , a n d a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e , i n t u r n , b e l i e v e d t h a t i t was t h e nominee whose p a r t y t h e c h a i r m a n j u d g e d t o be more i n t h e wrong who w o u l d p e r c e i v e t h e c h a i r m a n a s b i a s e d . Comments i n d i c a t e t h a t , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , where b o t h n o m i n e e s f e l t t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n was b i a s e d , t h e n o m inee whose p a r t y h a d b e e n a d j u d g e d more i n t h e r i g h t w o u l d n e v e r a d m i t t h a t he f e l t t h e c h a i r m a n was b i a s e d i n h i s f a v o u r . The h i g h n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e i s a t t r i b u t e d b y t h e a u t h o r t o t h e r a t h e r c o m p l e x and a b s t r a c t n a t u r e o f t h e q u e s t i o n . I f one o f t h e n o m i n e e s f e e l s t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n i s b i a s e d , what a r e t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s ? The r e s p o n s e t o t h i s q u e s t i o n ( Q u e s t i o n 4-2) was v i r t u a l l y u n a n i m o u s : t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a g r e e m e n t b e i n g r e a c h e d b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s w o u l d be d e s t r o y e d . I n a n e f f o r t t o o b t a i n f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e e f f e c t , on c o n c i l i a t i o n , o f p e r c e i v e d b i a s i n t h e c h a i r m a n , r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d ( i n Q u e s t i o n 43), what, g e n e r a l l y , a r e t h e c l u e s b y w h i c h a nominee d e t e r m i n e d w h e t h e r o r n o t a c h a i r m a n i s b i a s e d . T h r e e p r i n c i p a l \" c l u e s \" were a p p a r e n t : o v e r t s t a t e m e n t s o f o p i n i o n on t h e p a r t o f a c h a i r m a n ; a c h a i r m a n ' s h a b i t o f a r g u i n g a g a i n s t a n o m i n e e r a t h e r t h a n l i s t e n i n g t o h i m , a n d a d i f f e r e n t i a l a t t i t u d e , on t h e p a r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n , t o w a r d t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e two p a r t i e s — g o i n g , i n t h e one c a s e , b e y o n d i t i n f a v o u r o f t h e p a r t y p r e s e n t i n g i t , a n d , i n t h e o t h e r , i g n o r i n g o r a r g u i n g a g a i n s t i t . I n r e s p o n s e t o a q u e s t i o n as t o how o f t e n t h e y f e l t t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e w o u l d be u n s u c c e s s f u l i n g e t t i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e , r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d , i n T a b l e L X V I I , b y a s c o r e o f 5^.5% v e r s u s 7.2%, t h a t s u c h a c h a i r m a n w o u l d u s u a l l y be u n s u c c e s s f u l . Nominees were n e x t p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d t h e b e l i e f t h a t a n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e w o u l d a c t u a l l y t e n d t o w i d e n t h e d i s -p u t e i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t w o u l d d e c r e a s e r a t h e r t h a n i n c r e a s e t h e c h a n c e s o f a g r e e m e n t b e i n g r e a c h e d b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s , an d were a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e how f r e q u e n t l y t h e y f e l t t h e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e w o u l d h a v e t h i s e f f e c t . The r e s u l t s , g i v e n i n T a b l e L X V I I I , show t h a t a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f n o m i n e e s (54.5% v e r s u s 14.5%) b e l i e v e t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e w i l l u s u a l l y have t h e p r e d i c t e d e f f e c t . A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a c c u m u l a t e d above o f f e r s f a i r l y s t r o n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s c o r r e c t a n d s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e he a c c e p t e d . 3. H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i i i ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 4-6-4-7; T a b l e s L X I X - LXX] f o c u s e d u p o n t h e e f f e c t o f t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e n o r m a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d c h a i r m a n on t h e r e l a t i v e i n t r a n s i g e n c e o f a nominee when he h a s b e e n g i v e n l i t t l e b a r g a i n i n g room b y h i s p a r t y , as o p p o s e d t o when he h a s b e e n g i v e n a g o o d d e a l o f b a r g a i n i n g room b y h i s p a r t y . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e nominee i n whose f a v o u r t h e o t h e r n o m inee p e r c e i v e s t h e c h a i r m a n as h a v i n g a b a n d o n e d h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y w i l l , i f he p e r c e i v e s h i s d e g r e e o f d e p e n d e n c e u p o n t h e d e s i r e s o f h i s p a r t y as g r e a t , a n d i f t h e y h a v e g i v e n h i m r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e room i n w h i c h t o c o m p r o m i s e , h a v e h i s d e g r e e o f i n t r a n s i g e n c e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n ( t h i s i s t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s ) ; i f on t h e o t h e r h a n d , he h a s b e e n g i v e n a f a i r l y w i d e r a n g e o f p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n w h i c h t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t , t h i s w i l l n o t be t h e c a s e ( t h i s i s t h e s e c o n d s e c t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s ) . The c i r c u m s t a n c e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s were d e s c r i b e d , a n d r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t h e i r o p i n i o n a s t o w h e t h e r , i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n w o u l d i n c r e a s e , d e c r e a s e , o r h a v e no e f f e c t u p o n t h e r i g i d i t y w i t h w h i c h t h e nominee w o u l d h o l d t o h i s p o s i t i o n . The r e s u l t s , g i v e n i n T a b l e L X I X , show t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s g i v e n a good d e a l more s u p p o r t t h a n a r e a n y o f t h e o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s p r o v i d e d , b u t i t i s n o t , i n t h e a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n , g r e a t e n o u g h t o c o n s t i t u t e c o n -f i r m a t i o n o f t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s somewhat more s t r o n g l y t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s , w h i c h a d d s f u r t h e r t o t h e m o u n t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e more c l o s e l y t i e d t h a n a r e u n i o n n o m i n e e s t o t h e w i s h e s o f t h e p a r t y t h e y r e p r e s e n t . The r a t h e r h i g h n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e i s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e h i g h l y a b s t r a c t n a t u r e o f t h e q u e s t i o n and, i n d e e d , some o f t h e comments a p p e n d e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n s u p p o r t t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n . The c i r c u m s t a n c e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e s e c o n d s e c t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s were d e s c r i b e d , a n d , a g a i n , r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s a s t o w h e t h e r , i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e c h a i r m a n w o u l d i n c r e a s e , d e c r e a s e , o r h a v e no e f f e c t u p o n t h e r i g i d i t y w i t h w h i c h t h e nominee w o u l d h o l d t o h i s p o s i t i o n . The r e s u l t s ( s e e T a b l e LXX) a r e , i n d e e d , d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h o s e o b t a i n e d i n T a b l e L X I X : s u p p o r t f o r \" i n c r e a s e \" d r o p s , and t h a t f o r \" d e c r e a s e \" i n c r e a s e s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e v o t e f o r e a c h becomes i d e n t i c a l , and t h a t f o r \"have no e f f e c t \" r e m a i n s t h e same. W h i l e t h i s s h i f t d o e s p r o v i d e some s u p p o r t f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s , i t i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d m a r k e d e n o u g h t o c o n s t i t u t e c o n f i r m a t i o n . A g a i n , more e m p l o y e r t h a n u n i o n n o m i n e e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r i g i d i t y w i t h w h i c h t h e nominee h e l d h i s p o s i t i o n w o u l d be i n c r e a s e d , p r o v i d i n g s t i l l f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e 128 o f t h e g r e a t e r p a r t y - d e p e n d e n c e , o f e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . The h i g h n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e i s a g a i n a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e h i g h l y a b s t r a c t n a t u r e o f t h e q u e s t i o n and, a g a i n , t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y comments t o t h a t e f f e c t . I n summation, t h e n , b o t h s e c t i o n s o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s r e c e i v e d some s u p p o r t , b u t s u p p o r t t h a t was, i n t h e a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n , i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y i t s a c c e p t a n c e . 4. H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( i v ) [ Q u e s t i o n 48; T a b l e s L X X I -L X X I I ] was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e r e l a t i v e i n a b i l i t y o f t h e n o r m a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d c h a i r m a n t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e r o l e o f t h e c h a i r m a n i s o f t e n i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e t a s k o f g e t t i n g t h e n o m i n e e s t o come t o a g r e e m e n t . W h i c h o f t h e two b a s i c t y p e s o f a p p r o a c h u s e d b y c h a i r m e n i s , i n g e n e r a l , more e f f e c t i v e i n g e t t i n g t h e two n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e , a n d i s s u e a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t ? T a b l e L X X I shows t h a t a v e r y m a r k e d l y g r e a t e r number (60.0% v e r s u s 12.7%) f a v o u r t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e , a l t h o u g h , a g a i n , a number o f comments s u g g e s t e d t h a t b o t h methods s h o u l d be u s e d . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d why t h e y t h o u g h t t h e m e t h o d t h e y h a d s e l e c t e d was t h e b e t t e r o f t h e two. A g a i n , s e v e r a l commented t h a t t h e y f e l t b o t h methods s h o u l d be u s e d . The g i s t o f t h e r e a s o n s s u p p l i e d b y t h e few who s u p p o r t e d t h e n o r m a t i v e method was t h a t j u s t i c e — w h a t was r i g h t a n d f a i r — w a s t o be p r e f e r r e d t o \" a g r e e m e n t a t a l l c o s t s \" . T h o s e who s u p p o r t e d t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was f a r more l i k e l y t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s b e c a u s e , u n d e r i t , t h e c h a i r m a n i s v i e w e d a s a n i m p a r t i a l man a t t e m p t i n g t o f i n d a median-p o s i t i o n u p o n w h i c h b o t h c a n v o l u n t a r i l y a g r e e , r a t h e r t h a n a t t e m p t i n g t o impose u p o n them t h e s e t t l e m e n t w h i c h he f e e l s i s r i g h t . S e v e r a l p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a g r e e m e n t , n o t j u s t i c e , was t h e c o n c e r n o f t h e B o a r d , a n d t h a t , f u r t h e r , i f t h e two n o m i n e e s a r e w i l l i n g t o a g r e e t o a p a r t i c u l a r s e t t l e m e n t , t h e r e i s no r e a s o n f o r t h e c h a i r m a n t o f e e l i t I s u n j u s t ; s e v e r a l f e l t t h a t , u n d e r t h e n o r m a t i v e method, one n o m inee w o u l d f e e l t h e c h a i r m a n was b i a s e d a g a i n s t h i m a n d w o u l d t h e r e f o r e n o t a g r e e t o a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t . A q u e r y as t o how much more e f f e c t i v e was t h e method o f t h e i r c h o i c e t h a n t h e o t h e r m e t h o d p r o d u c e d t h e r e s u l t s g i v e n i n T a b l e L X X I I , w h i c h i n d i c a t e r a t h e r c l e a r l y t h a t t h e a c c o m m o d a t i v e method i s r e g a r d e d a s f a r more e f f e c t i v e i n a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s , a n d b y a f a r g r e a t e r number o f r e s p o n d e n t s , t h a n i s t h e n o r m a t i v e . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p r e c e d i n g e v i d e n c e l e a d s r a t h e r f o r c i b l y t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v e method i s r e g a r d e d as a r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t i v e m e thod o f a t t e m p t i n g t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s , a n d i t t h e r e f o r e seems r e a s o n a b l e t o e x t r a p o l a t e t h a t i t i s o f t e n i n c o m -p a t i b l e w i t h t h e t a s k o f g e t t i n g t h e n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t ; t h e h y p o t h e s i s may t h u s be a c c e p t e d . 130 5 . H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v ) [ Q u e s t i o n 61; T a b l e s L X X I I I -L X X I V ] was concerned, w i t h t h e u s e o f n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a b y a c c o m m o d a t i v e l y - o r i e n t e d c h a i r m e n . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , where a c h a i r m a n i s u s i n g a b a s i c a l l y a c c o m m o d a t i v e method, he w i l l a l m o s t a l w a y s b r i n g t o b e a r , i n a d d i t i o n , t h e p r e s s u r e o f n o r m a t i v e c r i t e r i a , i n o r d e r t o t r y t o g e t t h e two t o a g r e e i n a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e r m s . I t i s assumed t h a t t h i s w i l l be t h e c a s e where a p u r e l y a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e h a s a l r e a d y b e e n u n s u c c e s s f u l l y t r i e d b y t h e c h a i r m a n . I t was d e c i d e d t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p r e d o m i n a n t l y n o r -m a t i v e c h a i r m a n e m p l o y i n g a n a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e a l s o be i n v e s t i g a t e d , a l t h o u g h i t was r e g a r d e d as l o g i c a l l y u n l i k e l y . W i t h t h e l a t t e r o b j e c t i n v i e w , t h e n , r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t h e i r o p i n i o n s on how f r e q u e n t l y a c h a i r m a n m a i n l y u s i n g a n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e w o u l d p r o b a b l y a l s o u s e a c c o m m o d a t i v e . c o n c i l i a t i o n . The r e s u l t s , g i v e n i n T a b l e L X X I I I , seem r a t h e r i n c o n c l u s i v e i n t h a t o p i n i o n i s r a t h e r e v e n l y d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e two e n d s o f t h e s c a l e , a n d t h e r e i s a h i g h n o n -r e s p o n s e r a t e . The most p r o b a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f b o t h o f t h e s e f a c t o r s i s , i t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o s u g g e s t , t h e l o g i c a l u n l i k e l i h o o d o f a p r e d o m i n a n t l y n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m a n t u r n i n g t o a c c o m m o d a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s a f t e r n o r m a t i v e methods h a v e n o t s u c c e e d e d i n a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t . F u r t h e r , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , i t a p p e a r s , f e e l , more s t r o n g l y t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s , t h a t p r e d o m i n a n t l y n o r m a t i v e c h a i r m e n w o u l d f a i r l y f r e q u e n t l y a l s o e m p l o y 1 3 1 a c c o m m o d a t i v e m e t h o d s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s c l e a v a g e r e m a i n s u n c l e a r . How f r e q u e n t l y w o u l d a p r e d o m i n a n t l y a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m a n p r o b a b l y a l s o e m p l o y n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s ? T a b l e L X X I V shows, t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s r e j e c t (more s t r o n g l y t h a n t h e y r e j e c t e d t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e r e v e r s e s i t u a t i o n i n T a b l e L X X I I I ) t h e i d e a t h a t a n a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m a n w i l l e m p l o y n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s w i t h a n y f r e q u e n c y ( a l t h o u g h , a g a i n , s e v e r a l p e r s o n s commented t h a t b o t h w o u l d be u s e d ) . The h y p o t h e s i s c a n n o t , c l e a r l y , be a c c e p t e d . T h i s w o u l d seem t o s u g g e s t , a s w o u l d t h e r e s u l t s o f T a b l e L X X I I I , t h a t t h e two t e c h n i q u e s a r e more m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e t h a n h a s h e r e t o f o r e b e e n s u p p o s e d . The f a r h i g h e r u n i o n n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e p r o b a b l y a c c o u n t s , i n T a b l e L XXIV, f o r t h e a p p a r e n t l y s t r o n g e r f e e l i n g o f e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s t h a t a c c o m m o d a t i v e c h a i r m e n w o u l d n o t be l i k e l y t o u s e n o r m a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s . Why what seems t o be t h e more l o g i c a l l y p l a u s i b l e s i t u a t i o n s h o u l d p r o d u c e a g r e a t e r d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e s o f u n i o n a n d e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s i s n o t a t a l l c l e a r . 6. H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x v i ) [ Q u e s t i o n 68; T a b l e s LXXV -L X X V I ] i n t e r e s t e d i t s e l f i n t h e e f f e c t o f t h e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y o f t h e c h a i r m a n t o t h e b e h a v i o u r o f n o m inee A on t h e b e h a v i o u r o f nominee B. I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y w h i c h t h e c h a i r m a n d e m o n s t r a t e s t o w a r d t h e b e h a v i o u r o f one 132 nominee w i l l f o r c e t h e o t h e r nominee t o b e h a v e t o w a r d t h e c h a i r m a n i n t h e same manner. I f a c h a i r m a n seems t o be i n f l u e n c e d i n f a v o u r o f a nominee b e c a u s e o f t h e n o m i n e e ' s u s e o f a n a g g r e s s i v e , u n c o m p r o m i s i n g b a r g a i n i n g a t t i t u d e , w i l l t h i s be l i k e l y , i n g e n e r a l , t o p e r s u a d e t h e o t h e r nominee t o a d o p t a s i m i l a r b a r g a i n i n g a t t i t u d e ? T a b l e LXXV d e m o n s t r a t e s , b y a s c o r e o f 4 9 . 1 % v e r s u s 1 8 . 2 % , t h a t t h i s i s l i k e l y t o be t h e c a s e . I f , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , a c h a i r m a n seems t o be i n f l u e n c e d i n f a v o u r o f a nominee b e c a u s e o f t h e n o m i n e e 1 s u s e o f a c o m p r o m i s i n g a n d c o n c e s s i o n - m a k i n g b a r g a i n i n g a t t i t u d e , w i l l t h i s be l i k e l y , i n g e n e r a l , t o p e r s u a d e t h e o t h e r nominee t o a d o p t a s i m i l a r b a r g a i n i n g a t t i t u d e ? T a b l e L X X V I shows, b y a v o t e o f 4 7 . 2 % v e r s u s 1 6 . 3 % , t h a t t h i s , a l s o , w i l l be t h e c a s e . I n t h e a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n , t h e n , t h e h y p o t h e s i s may be a c c e p t e d . Two r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g d i v e r g e n c e s o f o p i n i o n w o u l d seem t o w a r r a n t d i s c u s s i o n . T a b l e LXXV shows t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s b e l i e v e , more s t r o n g l y t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s , t h a t , i f a c h a i r m a n seems i n f l u e n c e d i n f a v o u r o f a nominee b y t h e n o m i n e e ' s u s e o f a n a g g r e s s i v e , u n c o m p r o m i s i n g b a r g a i n i n g a t t i t u d e , t h i s w i l l p e r s u a d e t h e o t h e r nominee t o do t h e same, w h e r e a s T a b l e L X X V I i n d i c a t e s t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s b e l i e v e , more s t r o n g l y t h a n do e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , t h a t i f t h e c h a i r m a n i s i n f l u e n c e d i n f a v o u r o f a nominee b e c a u s e o f t h e n o m i n e e ' s u s e o f a c o m p r o m i s i n g b a r g a i n i n g a t t i t u d e , t h i s w i l l p e r s u a d e t h e o t h e r nominee t o do t h e same. I t seems most p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e s e r e s u l t s mean t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e more w i l l i n g t o be t o u g h a n d r e l a t i v e l y u n c o m p r o m i s i n g , ahd a r e more s u c c e s s f u l when t h e y a r e , t h a n a r e u n i o n n o m i n e e s , w h e r e a s u n i o n n o m i n e e s , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r e more w i l l i n g t o c o m p r o m i s e , a n d a r e more s u c c e s s f u l when t h e y do s o . 7. H y p o t h e s i s 2 ( x i x ) [ Q u e s t i o n 72; T a b l e s L X X V I I -L X X V I I I ] c o n c e n t r a t e d u p o n t h e t e n d e n c y f o r t h e c h a i r m a n , i n t h e e v e n t t h a t u n a n i m i t y i s n o t a c h i e v e d , t o s i g n more f r e q u e n t l y w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l , when he c a n n o t g e t t h e n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e , s i g n more f r e q u e n t l y w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e , i s r e c a p i t u l a t e d b r i e f l y b e l o w . I t i s assumed t h a t , i n o r d e r t o a l l o w t h e m s e l v e s p l e n t y o f b a r g a i n i n g room, t h e n o m i n e e s w i l l t a k e , i n i t i a l l y , r e l a t i v e l y e x t r e m e b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s , b u t t h a t t h e u n i o n p o s i t i o n t e n d s more o f t e n t o be t h e more e x t r e m e o f t h e two. S h o u l d t h e two n o m i n e e s be u n a b l e t o a g r e e , t h e y w i l l f r e q u e n t l y r e t u r n t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s i n o r d e r t o g i v e t h e i r p a r t i e s a s much b a r g a i n i n g room as p o s s i b l e . A s t h e i n i t i a l b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n o f t h e e m p l o y e r n o m inee i s more f r e -q u e n t l y t h e l e s s e x t r e m e o f t h e two, t h e c h a i r m a n w i l l , t h e n , where t h i s s i t u a t i o n o c c u r s , more f r e q u e n t l y s i g n w i t h h i m . 134-The c i r c u m s t a n c e s were o u t l i n e d i n t h e f o r m o f a h y p o t h e t i c a l a n d anonymous q u o t a t i o n , and r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e a b o u t how f r e q u e n t l y , i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , do n o m i n e e s , when t h e y c a n n o t a g r e e on a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , r e t u r n t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n s — t h a t i s , more o r l e s s t o t h e p o s i t i o n s w h i c h t h e y f i r s t h e l d when t h e y b e g a n t h e i r b a r g a i n i n g on t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d , T a b l e L X X V I I shows t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t t h i s h a p p e n s more o f t e n t h a n h o t . Comments s u g g e s t t h a t a c h a i r m a n w i l l o f t e n a t t h i s p o i n t o f f e r a p o s i t i o n w h i c h he f e e l s t o be a f a i r one, a n d i n v i t e one o f t h e n o m i n e e s t o j o i n h i m ; some r e s p o n d e n t s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h i s m e thod was o f t e n s u c c e s s f u l i n a c h i e v i n g a r e l a t i v e l y m o d e r a t e m a j o r i t y r e p o r t b e c a u s e o f t e n one o f t h e n o m i n e e s w o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t l y t e m p t e d b y t h e p r o s p e c t o f a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t t o s h i f t f r o m h i s e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n t o t h e more i n t e r m e d i a t e one p r o p o s e d b y t h e c h a i r m a n . However, we c e r t a i n l y c a n n o t i n f e r , f r o m T a b l e L X X V I I , t h a t t h i s i s t h e u s u a l outcome o f s u c h a s i t u a t i o n . The f a c t t h a t more e m p l o y e r t h a n u n i o n n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t t h e s h i f t t o i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n s o c c u r s f r e q u e n t l y s u g g e s t s t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e more a n x i o u s t o p r o t e c t t h e b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s o f t h e i r p a r t i e s , a f i n d i n g w h i c h t i e s i n w i t h p r e v i o u s e v i d e n c e o f t h e g r e a t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s o n t h e w i s h e s o f t h e i r p a r t i e s . When t h e two n o m i n e e s c a n n o t a g r e e , a n d r e t u r n t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n s , w i t h w h i c h nominee w i l l t h e c h a i r m a n , a s a r u l e , g e n e r a l l y s i g n ? The r e s p o n s e t o t h i s q u e s t i o n i s g i v e n i n T a b l e L X X V I I I : 25.4% f e l t he w o u l d g e n e r a l l y s i g n w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e ; none f e l t he w o u l d u s u a l l y s i g n w i t h t h e u n i o n n o m i n e e , a n d 74.5% r e f u s e d t o make e i t h e r c h o i c e . Comments f r o m n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y f e l t t h e m s e l v e s u n a b l e t o g e n e r a l i z e a b o u t t h e m a t t e r , a s i t w o u l d d e p e n d on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s — t h e c h a i r m a n w o u l d s i g n w i t h t h e one who t o o k , i n h i s o p i n i o n , t h e most r e a s o n a b l e p o s i t i o n ; f u r t h e r , o n l y two o f t h o s e who d i d r e s p o n d e x p l a i n e d t h e i r a n s w e r i n t e r m s o f t h e r a t i o n a l e o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s . On t h e o t h e r hand, a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f T a b l e L X X V I I I d o e s s u g g e s t t h a t c h a i r m e n do more o f t e n s i g n w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r nominee ( t h e comments o f u n i o n n o m i n e e s who d i d r e s p o n d s u p p o r t : t h i s ) , b u t t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e r e l u c t a n t t o a d m i t t h i s . I n summation, t h e n , t h e most p r o b a b l e i n t e r p r e t -a t i o n w o u l d seem t o be t h a t c h a i r m e n do s i g n somewhat more f r e q u e n t l y w i t h e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e t h e y p e r c e i v e t h e e c o n o m i c c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a n a ward f a v o u r i n g t h e o t h e r s i d e as b e i n g f a r more s e r i o u s f o r an e m p l o y e r t h a n f o r a u n i o n , i n t h a t t h e y p r o b a b l y f e e l t h a t s u c h an a w ard, were t h e e m p l o y e r f o r c e d t o a c c e p t i t , c o u l d a c t u a l l y e i t h e r p u t h i m o u t o f b u s i n e s s , o r e l s e h a v e somewhat l e s s d r a s t i c , b u t n o n e t h e l e s s s e r i o u s l y d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s . The e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s n o t , h o w e v e r , d e c i s i v e l y s t r o n g , so t h a t no d e f i n i t e j u d g e m e n t a s t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e or r e j e c t i o n of the hypothesis may be reached. 8 . Hypothesis 3 ( i ) (b) [Questions 77-78; Tables LXXTX - LXXXII] was' concerned with the chairman's p r o v i s i o n to the nominees of avenues of r e t r e a t to p o s i t i o n s c l o s e r to agreement. I t was hypothesized that (as the nominees w i l l be s e n s i t i v e to p u b l i c and/or party personnel s c r u t i n y and opinion of the nominees' p o s i t i o n s throughout the c o n c i l i a t i o n proceedings) the presence of p o s i t i o n s suggested by the chairman w i l l be perceived by the nominees as providing avenues of r e t r e a t to p o s i t i o n s c l o s e r to agreement f o r which neither nominee w i l l appear to bear a predominance of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . It was f e l t that t h i s would tend to reduce the l i k e l i h o o d of the p a r t i e s charging t h e i r nominees with f a i l u r e to carry out the task of p r o t e c t i n g the party's i n t e r e s t s . Table LXXXIX demonstrates that, by an overwhelming majority, respondents f e e l that nominees are s e n s i t i v e to the opinions which t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s have about what they do on the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board, whereas Table LXXX indi c a t e s that most respondents f e e l that r e l a t i v e l y few nominees are s e n s i t i v e to the opinions which the p u b l i c have about what they do on the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board—of course t h i s i s probably both because nominees do not consider that p u b l i c opinion i s , i n most cases, relevant to the dispute, and also because (as some comments indicated) the p u b l i c do not as a r u l e 137 have the o p p o r t u n i t y of knowing much of what i s o c c u r r i n g on the Boards, which are u s u a l l y conducted p r i v a t e l y — although newspapers do sometimes r e p o r t on the\"progress of a Board. Table LXXX shows t h a t employer nominees are somewhat l e s s s e n s i t i v e to p u b l i c o p i n i o n of what they do on the Board than are union nominees—perhaps because a n t i - u n i o n p u b l i c i t y and f e e l i n g seems commoner than anti-employer p u b l i c i t y . At f i r s t glance, t h i s would seem to c o n t r a d i c t the f i n d i n g s of Tables VI and V I I , which i n d i c a t e d t h a t employers were more s e n s i t i v e to a l o s s of p u b l i c sympathy, through the issuance of a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t , than were unions. However, i t seems reasonable to suppose t h a t employers simply -f e e l t h a t , w h i l e a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t may be r a t h e r l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n a l o s s of p u b l i c sympathy, the behaviour of t h e i r nominee on the Board w i l l n o t . Question 78(a) suggested t h a t p o s s i b l y i t would be somewhat embarrassing f o r a nominee to r e t r e a t from a p o s i t i o n which he has a l r e a d y t r i e d t o j u s t i f y before the chairman, the other nominee, and the p u b l i c , and asks whether nominees use new b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s suggested by the chairman as a way of coming c l o s e r to agreement without \" l o s i n g f a c e \" before the other nominee. Table LXXI sug-gests t h a t t h i s i s a r a t h e r common phenomenon. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t employer nominees seem t o f e e l t h a t they do t h i s r a t h e r more o f t e n than do union nominees— which c o u l d mean t h a t chairmen are somewhat more sympathetic 1 3 8 t o e m p l o y e r s t h a n t h e y a r e t o u n i o n s i n t h a t t h e y s u g g e s t more b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s w h i c h e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e w i l l i n g t o u s e . T h i s w o u l d seem l o g i c a l i f we assume t h a t c h a i r m e n v i e w a p a r t i c u l a r l y u n f a v o u r a b l e a w a r d as b e i n g more e c o n o m i c a l l y s e r i o u s f o r an e m p l o y e r , a n d a l s o t i e s i n w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f T a b l e LXXVIII, w h i c h s u g g e s t e d t h a t , where a g r e e m e n t c a n n o t be r e a c h e d , c h a i r m e n more f r e q u e n t l y s i g n w i t h e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e how a n o m i n e e , when he s u g g e s t s t o h i s p a r t y t h a t t h e y a d o p t a more c o m p r o m i s i n g p o s i t i o n , u s u a l l y j u s t i f i e s h i s s u g g e s t i o n and a v o i d s b e i n g a c c u s e d b y them o f \" s e l l i n g o u t \" — t h a t i s , o f n o t t r y i n g h a r d e n o u g h t o p r o t e c t t h e w e l f a r e a n d i n t e r e s t s o f h i s p a r t y . R e s p o n s e s t.o a d i r e c t q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r n o m i n e e s w o u l d a t t e m p t t o j u s t i f y s u c h a s u g g e s t i o n b y s t a t i n g t h a t t h e more c o m p r o m i s i n g p o s i t i o n i s n o t t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n , b u t was made b y t h e c h a i r m a n , g e t s a r a t h e r m i x e d r e s p o n s e ( s e e T a b l e LXXXII); i t seems c l e a r , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s t e c h n i q u e , w h i l e i t i s b y no means a l w a y s u s e d , i s r e l a t i v e l y common. A c l e a v a g e o f some i n t e r e s t a p p e a r s : t h e d a t a s u g g e s t t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s f i n d t h i s m e thod more e f f e c t i v e , o r d e s i r a b l e , a n d u s e i t more o f t e n , t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s — w h i c h w o u l d , i t seems, p r o v i d e f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e g r e a t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s on t h e w i s h e s o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . Comments i n d i c a t e t h a t a s u g g e s t i o n t o t a k e a more c o m p r o m i s i n g p o s i t i o n w o u l d u s u a l l y be j u s t i f i e d e i t h e r on t h e g r o u n d s 139 that i t would give the party a bargaining advantage, or on the grounds that i t would probably r e s u l t i n a settlement. A l l i n a l l , then, the hypothesis i s given a good deal of support, although c e r t a i n l y not enough to constitute outright confirmation. The greater w i l l i n g n e s s , noted above, of employer nominees to j u s t i f y suggestions to t h e i r p a r t i e s f o r a change of p o s i t i o n on the grounds that they were made by the chairman, as well as accumulating evidence of the greater dependence of employer nominees upon the wishes of t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s , have been a t t r i b u t e d thus f a r to perceptions of the greater economic seriousness, f o r an employer, of an unfavourable C o n c i l i a t i o n Board award. While t h i s prof-fered causal f a c t o r i s s t i l l regarded as i n f l u e n t i a l , a reconsideration of the accumulation of evidence mentioned strongly suggests to the author that another, and rather more i n f l u e n t i a l causal f a c t o r , i s operating i n conjunction with that already advanced. It seems reasonable to propose, on the basis of the evidence mentioned, that employer nominees tend to see themselves as being involved i n a contractual, or secondary, r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s , f o r whom they are therefore agents, whereas union nominees appear to view themselves as belonging to the same group as t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s , and therefore as having a more \"primary\" sort of r e l a t i o n s h i p with the p a r t i e s they r e p r e s e n t — t h e y a r e members o f t h e g r o u p r a t h e r t h a n a g e n t s f o r i t . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e f o r t y - e i g h t n o m i n e e s f r o m whom d a t a was o b t a i n e d o f f e r s s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r t h i s i d e a : o f t h e t w e n t y - f o u r u n i o n n o m i n e e s i n v o l v e d , t w e n t y a r e members o f , a s w e l l a s o f f i c e r s o f , l a b o u r u n i o n s , a n d two m o r e — a l a b o u r e c o n o m i s t e m p l o y e d f u l l - t i m e b y u n i o n s t o do r e s e a r c h f o r them, and t h e e d i t o r o f a C.C.F. ( t h e C a n a d i a n s o c i a l i s t p a r t y ) n e w s p a p e r — m a d e a p p a r e n t t o t h e a u t h o r s t r o n g m o r a l a n d p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n s w i t h l a b o u r u n i o n s , a n d , f i n a l l y , none o f t h e t w e n t y - f o u r r e c e i v e a n y m o n e t a r y c o m p e n s a t i o n , o t h e r t h a n e x p e n s e s , f o r s e r v i n g on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s a s n o m i n e e s o f v a r i o u s l a b o u r u n i o n s ; on t h e o t h e r h a n d , no l e s s t h a n t w e l v e o f t h e t w e n t y - f o u r e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s i n v o l v e d ( s e v e n l a w y e r s a n d f i v e members o f i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s f i r m s ) a r e s i m p l y p a i d a g e n t s o f t h e e m p l o y e r s whom t h e y r e p r e s e n t . I t i s t r u e t h a t t w e l v e o f t h e t w e n t y - f o u r a r e e x e c u t i v e s , b u t , w h i l e i t seems o b v i o u s t h a t u n i o n members w i l l be drawn t o g e t h e r , i n a r a t h e r \" p r i m a r y \" manner, b y t h e i r m u t u a l i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e h i s t o r y a n d v a l u e s o f t h e u n i o n movement, e m p l o y e r s a n d e x e c u t i v e s w i l l , i t i s f e l t , r e l a t e t o one a n o t h e r i n a somewhat more i m p e r s o n a l manner, o c c a s i o n e d i n l a r g e m e a s u r e b y t h e r a t h e r s t r o n g l y c o m p e t i t i v e n a t u r e o f commerce and i n d u s t r y . One's f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n c o u l d w e l l be t h a t t h i s c r u c i a l d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s w o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e s t r o n g e r p r e s s u r e t o d e p e n d e n c e u p o n the wishes of one's p a r t y b e i n g brought t o bear upon the union, r a t h e r than upon the employer, nominees. However, i t i s the author's view t h a t , because union nominees can view themselves as \"members of the group\", they can f e e l more secure i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the p a r t i e s they represent because they are t h e r e f o r e l e s s l i k e l y to be suspected, or accused, of not p r o p e r l y p r o t e c t i n g the i n t e r e s t s of the p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y they represent should they decide t o i n i t i a t e suggestions or a c t i o n on t h e i r own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Employer nominees, on the other h a n d — because they can more, o f t e n regard themselves e i t h e r as merely h i r e d agents of the p a r t y they r e p r e s e n t , o r , as i n the case of e x e c u t i v e s , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s engaged i n a somewhat more impersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the p a r t y represented than would be l i k e l y to be p o s s i b l e f o r union nominees.;—are, i n the author's view, s u b j e c t e d t o a much st r o n g e r pressure not t o take the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n i t i a t i n g s uggestions, or a c t i o n , themselves, because to do so would be much more l i k e l y to render them v u l n e r a b l e to accusations of f a i l u r e t o p r o t e c t the p a r t y i n t e r e s t . A f u r t h e r p i e c e of evidence which appears to support these ideas i s the f a c t t h a t , c o n s i s t e n t l y , f a r more union than employer nominees are w i l l i n g t o present t h e i r o p i n i o n s on the f o r c e d - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s , or e l a b o r a t i o n s of t h e i r r e a c t i o n s to them, i n the form of comments appended t o these q u e s t i o n s — w h i c h suggests t h a t union nominees f e e l much l e s s t r e p i d a t i o n about d i s c u s s i n g f r e e l y t h e i r r o l e i n connection w i t h , and 142 t h e i r f e e l i n g s toward, C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards. It w i l l he r e c a l l e d , to r e t u r n once again to the hypothesis, that Hypothesis 3 ( i ) consisted of three separate hypothesized f a c t o r s — 3 ( i ) ( a ) , 3 ( i ) ( b ) and 3 ( i ) ( c ) — w h i c h together constituted the hypothesis, which stated that these three f a c t o r s were the decisive ones determining the outcome of the chairman's e f f o r t s to achieve agreement between the nominees. Now that a l l three of these sub-hypotheses have been tested, the entire hypothesis may be discussed as a u n i t . To r e c a p i t u l a t e the three sub-hypotheses b r i e f l y , 3 ( i ) (a) held that the l e g a l requirement of party-nominated representatives i s f u n c t i o n a l to the goal of agreement between the nominees i n that i t r e s u l t s i n i n t e r - p a r t y communication and hence i n a knowledge of what the other party i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g to s e t t l e for—knowledge which was viewed as the most important necessary condition f o r reaching agreement. 3 ( i ) (c) proposed that t h i s l e g a l requirement of party-nominated representatives was also dysfunctional to the goal of reaching or approaching agreement i n that i t introduced the f a c t o r of partisanship, and, of course, 3 ( i ) (b) hypothesized that the presence of p o s i t i o n s sug-gested by the chairman w i l l be perceived by the nominees as providing avenues of r e t r e a t to p o s i t i o n s c l o s e r to agreement f o r which neither nominee w i l l appear to bear a predominance of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 3 ( i ) ( a ) was accepted. 3 ( i ) ( c ) , although i t accumulated.considerable support, d i d not obtain enough 14-3 t o warrant i t s acceptance, and 3 ( i ) ( b ) s u f f e r e d the same f a t e . Hypothesis 3(1) cannot, then, as a u n i t , he accepted. 9. Hypothesis 3(v) [Questions 90-93; Tables LXXXIII - LXXXVTI] focused upon the d i r e c t i o n of nominee independence of p a r t y d e s i r e s . I t was hypothesized t h a t some nominees w i l l show v a r y i n g degrees of independence of the p a r t i e s which they r e p r e s e n t , and t h a t t h i s independence, when i t occurs, w i l l almost always be i n the d i r e c t i o n of being more c o n c i l i a t o r y than t h e i r p a r t i e s had i n d i c a t e d t o them t h a t they d e s i r e d them t o be. Table LXXXIII shows f a i r l y c l e a r l y t h a t most nominees n e g o t i a t e f a i r l y f r e q u e n t l y w i t h the chairman and the other nominee on the b a s i s of a b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n which i s p r e t t y w e l l e x a c t l y the one which the nominee's p a r t y has i n d i c a t e d t o him t h a t they want him to use. Question 90 (b) put the converse: how f r e q u e n t l y do nominees n e g o t i a t e w i t h the chairman and the other nominee on the b a s i s of a b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n which i s d i f f e r e n t i n some ways from the one which the nominee's p a r t y has i n d i c a t e d to him t h a t they want him to use? The r e s u l t s , g iven i n Table LXXXIV, show t h a t t h i s d e f i n i t e l y does occur. I t seems reasonable to suppose t h a t the di s c r e p a n c y between the two t a b l e s ( t h e o r e t i c a l l y the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of each should reverse t h a t of the other) may have been caused e i t h e r by a somewhat ambiguous phrase i n each q u e s t i o n (\"pretty well exactly\" i n Question 90 (a); \" i n some ways\" i n Question 90 (b), or by the s u g g e s t i b i l i t y of respondents, or by a combination of both. A number of comments suggest that nominee dependence upon, and independence of, party desires so f a r as bargaining p o s i t i o n i s concerned are not mutually exclusive, but that (at l e a s t on occasion), nominees w i l l begin bargaining by s t i c k i n g p r e t t y well exactly to the p o s i t i o n s provided by t h e i r p a r t i e s , and w i l l l a t e r , i n an e f f o r t to achieve agreement, become somewhat more f l e x i b l e on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e . An i n t e r e s t i n g difference of opinion makes i t s e l f apparent: both of the tables suggest that employer nominees are more c l o s e l y t i e d to the wishes of t h e i r party than are union nominees—an observation which t i e s i n with a large accumulation of evidence to the same e f f e c t . Those respondents who f e l t that a nominee ever negotiates on a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board with a bargaining p o s i t i o n d i f f e r e n t i n some ways from the one or ones that h i s party have ind i c a t e d to him that they want him to use, were asked to indicate i n what way t h i s bargaining p o s i t i o n of the nominee himself would d i f f e r from that which h i s party has t o l d him they want him to use. The r e s u l t s of t h i s query are given i n Table LXXXV, from which i t seems f a i r l y c l e a r t h i s p o s i t i o n of the nominee himself u s u a l l y d i f f e r s from that of his party i n that i t i s more compromising. However, the non-response rate i s very high—4-1.8%. This, i t seems 14-5 c l e a r , i s what a c c o u n t s f o r t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n o p i n i o n t h a t a r e e v i d e n t i n t h e t a b l e , b u t why s h o u l d t h e u n i o n n o n -r e s p o n s e r a t e be more t h a n t w i c e t h a t o f t h e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s ? M o s t o f t h o s e who gave a r e a s o n f o r t h e i r n o n -r e s p o n s e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y f e l t t h e q u e s t i o n was t o o a b s t r a c t t o p e r m i t o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n — i t w o u l d d e p e n d u p o n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e — b u t , a g a i n , why s h o u l d t w i c e as many u n i o n as e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s f e e l t h i s way? I n g e n e r a l , i t seems m o s t p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e n o n -r e s p o n s e r a t e i s h i g h b e c a u s e n o m i n e e s know t h a t , when t h e i r b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n d o e s d i f f e r f r o m t h a t w h i c h t h e i r p a r t i e s h a v e i n d i c a t e d t h e y want u s e d , i t w i l l d i f f e r i n t h a t i t w i l l be more c o m p r o m i s i n g ( t h e f a c t t h a t , o f t h o s e who r e s p o n d e d , o v e r f i v e t i m e s as many i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d be more r a t h e r t h a n l e s s c o m p r o m i s i n g , s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t s t h i s ) , b u t t h a t b o t h u n i o n a n d e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e somewhat u n w i l l i n g t o a d m i t t h i s , b e c a u s e i t s u g g e s t s a l a c k o f a l l e g i a n c e t o o n e ' s p a r t y . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t t h e g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y a n d i n d e p e n d e n c e o f u n i o n n o m i n e e s was a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e s e n s e o f s e c u r i t y a n d t r u s t p r o v i d e d b y t h e p r i m a r y n a t u r e o f t h e b o n d w h i c h t h e y e n j o y e d w i t h t h e i r p a r t i e s , and a t f i r s t g l a n c e t h e i r g r e a t e r n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e seems i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s r a t i o n a l e . I t seems most r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s g r e a t e r i n d e p e n d e n c e d o e s r e s u l t i n t h e i r t a k i n g , more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s more c o m p r o m i s i n g 146 than those which t h e i r p a r t i e s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t they would p r e f e r , hut t h a t the ve r y primary hond which makes t h i s p o s s i b l e generates i n union nominees such a g'ehse of l o y a l t y t o the unions they r e p r e s e n t t h a t they are unable to appear to be l e t t i n g down t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s by a d m i t t i n g t h a t they do not always f o l l o w t h e i r wishes (although the p a t t e r n of t h e i r responses, over many q u e s t i o n s , has a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t they are f a r l e s s dependent upon the wishes of t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s than are employer nominees); the s o l u t i o n to t h i s c o n f l i c t has e v i d e n t l y l a i n , f o r them, i n a r e f u s a l to respond t o the q u e s t i o n . Two more questions o f f e r f u r t h e r evidence of the ex i s t e n c e of frequent d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n on the terms of b a r g a i n i n g and settlement between nominees and t h e i r p a r t i e s . Table LXXXVI suggests t h a t nominees q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y f e e l a c o n f l i c t between what they t h i n k t h e i r p a r t y wants, and what the nominees t h i n k would get a settlement of the d i s p u t e , whereas Table LXXXVTI i n d i c a t e s t h a t , some-what l e s s f r e q u e n t l y than i n Table LXXXVI, nominees f e e l a c o n f l i c t between what they t h i n k t h e i r p a r t y wants, and what the nominees t h i n k should be the b a s i s of a settl e m e n t . Again, the data i n both t a b l e s s t r o n g l y suggest t h a t employer nominees are more c l o s e l y t i e d to the wishes of t h e i r p a r t i e s than are union nominees. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t , i n both t a b l e s , a much hi g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of chairmen than of employer or union nominees i n d i c a t e d t h a t nominees f e l t the c o n f l i c t s suggested, which means that chairmen perceive nominees as heing more dependent upon the wishes of t h e i r p a r t i e s than the nominees perceive themselves. A f u r t h e r cleavage of i n t e r e s t i s that f a r more nominees ind i c a t e d ( i n Table LXXXVI) that they f e l t a c o n f l i c t between what they thought t h e i r party wanted and what the nominees thought would get a settlement of the dispute, than i n d i c a t e d ( i n Table LXXXVII) that they f e l t a c o n f l i c t between what they thought t h e i r party wanted and what the nominees thought should be the basis of a settlement. This means that nominees are much more w i l l i n g to admit to a difference with t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s over an expediential matter—what would get a settlement of the d i s p u t e — t h a n over a normative m a t t e r — what should be the basis of a settlement. I t seems obvious that t h i s i s because the \"condemnation\" involved i n the admission of such a difference i s , of course, much stronger i n the l a t t e r case. In summation, then, the evidence offered above seems s u f f i c i e n t to warrant the tentative acceptance of the hypothesis. 1 0 . Hypothesis 3 ( v i ) [Questions 9 4 - 9 5 ; Tables LXXXVIII - LXXXIX] was devoted to the e f f e c t of nominee independence of party desires upon the chairman and upon the other nominee. It was hypothesized that, should a nominee indicate such c o n c i l i a t o r y independence to the 14-8 chairman, the chairman w i l l attempt to get the other nominee to compromise i n the same way; and that, should a nominee indicate such c o n c i l i a t o r y independence to the other nominee, the other nominee w i l l tend to show the same kind of con-c i l i a t o r y independence himself. Table LXXXVIII presents the r e s u l t s of a query as to whether, i f a nominee indicates to the chairman that he i s more w i l l i n g to compromise than h i s party appears to be, the chairman w i l l be l i k e l y , as a r e s u l t of t h i s , to t r y to persuade the other nominee to compromise i n the same way. C l e a r l y , respondents f e e l that chairmen would, as a r u l e , behave i n such a way i n such a s i t u a t i o n . Employer nominees seem to f e e l , more strongly than do union nominees, that chairmen would usually behave i n such a way, which could mean that employer nominees have a higher opinion of chairmen—an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which t i e s i n with previous speculations i n connection with Tables LXXVIII and LXXXI that chairmen are somewhat more sympathetic to employers and employer nominees. I f a nominee indicates to the other nominee that he i s more w i l l i n g to compromise than h i s party appears to be, w i l l the other nominee be l i k e l y to attempt to compromise i n the same way? Table LXXXIX shows a rather mixed response to t h i s question: obviously, t h i s does occur f a i r l y often, but not with the frequency predicted by the hypothesis. The data suggest that employer nominees would he somewhat le s s l i k e l y than would union nominees to behave i n t h i s way— furt h e r evidence that employer nominees are more c l o s e l y t i e d to the wishes of t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . In summation, then, the f i r s t s e c t i o n of the hypothesis may be accepted, but the second—while i t d i d receive a good deal of s u p p o r t — d i d not receive enough to in d i c a t e that what i s hypothesized generally p r e v a i l s . C. Other-role Factors In Chapter I I , i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , eleven hypotheses were r e c l a s s i f i e d under the r u b r i c of Other-role Factors; these w i l l be discussed i n turn below. 1. Hypothesis l ( i ) [Question 7; Table XC] was concerned with the e f f e c t of the academic occupational r o l e upon the i m p a r t i a l i t y of the chairman. It was hypothesized that i m p a r t i a l and objective behaviour on the part of the chairman and with reference to the nominees w i l l be found most frequently i n persons r e c r u i t e d from the academic profes s i o n . Respondents were asked to l i s t only the occupations or professions of the chairmen who chaired the C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards on which they have served, or, i f they have always served as chairmen themselves, they were asked to l i s t the occupations or professions of other chairmen whose work as chairmen they have heard something about. They were then asked to rank these chairmen f o r i m p a r t i a l i t y by p l a c i n g numerals a f t e r the occupations and professions l i s t e d . Table XC presents those occupations or professions which were ranked as \"most i m p a r t i a l \" by one or more respondents, together with the percentage of respondents who ranked each of these occupations or professions as \"most i m p a r t i a l \" . As u n i v e r s i t y professors receive the greatest number of \"most i m p a r t i a l \" rankings, the hypothesis must be accepted. 2. Hypothesis l ( i i ) [Question 9; Table XCI] focused upon an imputed anti-union bias on the part of r e t i r e d persons. It was hypothesized that r e t i r e d persons who serve on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards w i l l tend to have an a n t i - i n f l a t i o n a r y bias that w i l l cause them to oppose any but r e l a t i v e l y small wage increases f o r unions. The following hypothetical and anonymous quotation purported to preser.t the g i s t of the opinions of some of the persons with whom the author had discussed C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards: Most of the r e t i r e d persons who serve on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards f e e l , i n general, that i f wages are increased, then p r i c e s and the general cost of l i v i n g w i l l tend to increase a l s o . Since most r e t i r e d persons l i v e on a r e l a t i v e l y f i x e d income, the majority of them f e e l that unions should be granted only the smallest possible wage increases. Respondents were asked to indicate about how many of the 151 r e t i r e d persons who serve on Conciliation\"Boards d i d they think t h i s was true of, i n general? The r e s u l t s , given i n Table XCI, suggest that t h i s does occur to some extent, but by no means often enough to warrant the acceptance of the hypothesis. So f a r as divergences of opinion are concerned, the question suggests that unions are discriminated against by r e t i r e d persons on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, and, of course, union nominees are rather more w i l l i n g to agree to t h i s than are employer nominees, who are scarc e l y w i l l i n g to agree to i t at a l l . 5 , The e f f e c t upon the i m p a r t i a l i t y of lawyer-chairmen of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of lawyers with the p o l i t i c a l and economic values of employers was the concern of Hypothesis l ( i i i ) [Questions 10-13; Tables XCII - XCVIJ. It was hypo-thesized that, with reference to the p o s i t i o n of chairman, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of lawyers with the economic and p o l i t i c a l values of employers, i n the sense of perceiving the necessity to protect a mutual i n t e r e s t , w i l l cause the majority of lawyers who serve as chairmen to be re l u c t a n t to exercise c o n c i l i a t o r y pressure upon employers through the employer nominee. (Of course, as i t i s frequently asserted, and apparently with considerable j u s t i f i c a t i o n , that u n i v e r s i t y professors of law are notable f o r t h e i r l i b e r a l views and t h e i r readiness to attack the establishment 152 on b e h a l f o f e m b a t t l e d u n d e r d o g s , t h i s h y p o t h e s i s s h o u l d have been f o r m u l a t e d t o a p p l y s o l e l y t o l a w y e r s i n p r i v a t e p r a c t i c e . ) Q u e s t i o n 10 s t a t e d t h a t i t had been s u g g e s t e d t o the a u t h o r by some p e o p l e t h a t C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m e n who are l a w y e r s t e n d , i n g e n e r a l , t o g e t a l o n g b e t t e r w i t h employer nominees t h a n t h e y do w i t h u n i o n nominees. Respondents were a s k e d t o g i v e t h e i r o p i n i o n s as t o a p p r o x i -m a t e l y how many C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m e n who are l a w y e r s t h i s i s t r u e o f . As T a b l e X C I I i n d i c a t e s , o p i n i o n i s r e l a t i v e l y e v e n l y d i v i d e d , w i t h about one t h i r d o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f e e l i n g t h a t t h i s i s t r u e o f most l a w y e r - c h a i r m e n . The q u e s t i o n does i m p l y t h a t l a w y e r - c h a i r m e n t e n d t o d i s -c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t u n i o n nominees, and t h e r e f o r e i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t n e a r l y t w i c e as many u n i o n as em p l o y e r nominees f e e l t h a t t h i s i s t r u e o f most s u c h c h a i r m e n . Would i t be g e n e r a l l y t r u e t o s a y t h a t l a w y e r s t e n d t o have economic and p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s w h i c h a r e more s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f em p l o y e r s t h a n t h e y a re t o tho s e o f employees? T a b l e X C I I I shows t h a t o v e r t h r e e t i m e s as many r e s p o n d e n t s f e e l t h i s i s so as f e e l i t i s n o t . The o p i n i o n s o f e m p loyer and u n i o n nominees are v e r y s i m i l a r on t h i s p o i n t , b u t i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t s i x o f t h e seven c h a i r m e n v o t e d \" y e s \" , and none \"no\". T h i s s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y o f o p i n i o n on the p a r t o f c h a i r m e n i s f e l t 153 simply to be a function of the f a c t that f i v e of the seven are lawyers. Those who indicated that they f e l t that lawyers generally tend to have economic and p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s which are more s i m i l a r to those of employers than they are to those of employees were asked whether t h i s tends to make most lawyers, when they serve as the chairman of a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board, somewhat reluctant to bring pressure to bear on the employer nominee to a l t e r h i s p o s i t i o n . Table XCIV gives the r e s u l t s — a r e l a t i v e l y even d i v i s i o n of opinion, with only about one quarter of the respondents i n d i c a t i n g that they f e l t t h i s was true of most such chairmen. As the question suggests that employer nominees are favoured by lawyer-chairmen, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that the union nominee and employer nominee percentage-responses represent almost exact reversals of one another: of the union nominees, 4-1.6% believe that t h i s i s true of most or a l l lawyer-chairmen, while 12.5% believe i t i s true of few or none of them; of the employer nominees, 8.3% believe i t i s true of most or a l l lawyer-chairmen, while 41.6% believe i t i s true of few or none, of them. The non-response rate on t h i s question i s of i n t e r e s t because that of union nominees i s twice the size of that of employer nominees. Four of the f i v e non-response employer nominees were so c l a s s i f i e d because they had given a w r i t t e n response which was u n c l a s s i f i a b l e i n terms of the forced-choice categories. 154 Only two of the nine \"non-response\" union nominees, on the other hand, had responded i n a similar way—the other seven had not responded in any way. This suggests to the author that these seven union nominees probably do not feel that they are discriminated against by lawyer-chairmen, but that they perhaps do fe e l somewhat resentful and discriminated against as a result of their experiences on Conciliation Boards in general , are therefore unwilling to admit to their true feelings about lawyer-chairmen, and have solved this conflict by simply choosing to ignore the question. About how many lawyers serve on Conciliation Boards as chairmen? Table XCV suggests that \"quite a few\" do. Table XCVI indicates that over twice as many respondents feel that lawyers tend to make \"good\" or \"excellent\" chairmen as feel they make \"not especially good\" or \"poor\" chairmen. Some informative differences of opinion arise in connection with these two questions. Prom Table XCV, we may see that approximately twice as many union as employer nominees feel that \"quite a few\" lawyers serve as chairmen, and the data contained i n Table XCVI make i t clear that employer nominees have a far higher regard for lawyer-chairmen than do union nominees. These two discrepancies strongly suggest that union nominees tend to dislike and distrust lawyers as chairmen; comments indicate that union nominees have two principal reasons for this: they f e e l that the economic interests of lawyers tend to l i e with employers, and that 155 l a w y e r s - w i l l t h e r e f o r e he s y m p a t h e t i c t o e m p l o y e r s , and t h e y d i s l i k e a p e r c e i v e d t e n d e n c y f o r l a w y e r s t o a d o p t an a p p r o a c h t h a t c o n c e n t r a t e s on l e g a l t e c h n i c a l i t i e s a n d t h e r e f o r e i n h i b i t s f r e e b a r g a i n i n g . ( S e v e r a l comments e x c e p t e d l a w y e r - c h a i r m e n i n t h e a c a d e m i c p r o f e s s i o n f r o m s u c h c h a r g e s , ) B u t t h e r e i s a f u r t h e r p o i n t o f i n t e r e s t w h i c h seems i m p l i c i t i n t h e s e d a t a : t h e f a c t t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s o b v i o u s l y l i k e l a w y e r - c h a i r m e n much l e s s t h a n do e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , and, f u r t h e r , p e r c e i v e f a r more o f them as s e r v i n g on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s t h a n do e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s w o u l d seem t o s u g g e s t t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s l i k e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s l e s s t h a n do e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s f a i r l y c l e a r l y t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s , c o n s i d e r e d a s a g r o u p , a r e o f a r a t h e r m i x e d o p i n i o n : t h e y n e i t h e r f i r m l y a c c e p t n o r f i r m l y r e j e c t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , t h e r e a s o n b e i n g t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s t e n d t o s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , a l t h o u g h n o t s t r o n g l y , w h e r e a s e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s t e n d t o r e j e c t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , a l t h o u g h n o t s t r o n g l y . The most p r o b a b l e c o n c l u s i o n w o u l d seem t o b e , t h e n , t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s t r u e o f some l a w y e r - c h a i r m e n . C e r t a i n l y , i t i s c l e a r t h a t e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , i n g e n e r a l , t h i n k l a w y e r s make good c h a i r m e n , w h e r e a s u n i o n n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t t h i s i s t r u e o f o n l y some l a w y e r s , a c o n c l u s i o n w h i c h w o u l d s u p p o r t t h e i d e a t h a t some l a w y e r - c h a i r m e n i n t h e p a s t h a v e p r o b a b l y b e e n b i a s e d i n f a v o u r o f e m p l o y e r s , w h i l e i t d o e s n o t seem l i k e l y t h a t a n y h a v e b e e n b i a s e d i n f a v o u r o f u n i o n s . 4. H y p o t h e s i s l ( i v ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 14-19; T a b l e s X G V I I - C I I ] was d e v o t e d t o t h e e f f e c t o f t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e o f t h e l a w y e r u p o n t h e a b i l i t y o f a l a w y e r - n o m i n e e t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t l a w y e r s who a p p e a r a s n o m i n e e s w i l l t e n d t o r e d u c e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e two n o m i n e e s r e a c h i n g a p o s i t i o n o f a g r e e m e n t ( b e c a u s e i t i s f e l t t h a t l a w y e r s , c o n d i t i o n e d t o t h e c o m b a t a t i v e u s e o f t h e c o u r t r o o m t e c h n i q u e o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , w i l l , a s n o m i n e e s , a n t a g o n i z e , t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f i t , t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e , and, t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t , t h e c h a i r m a n , and, f u r t h e r , t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e y a r e c o n d i t i o n e d t o l e g a l i s t i c t h i n k i n g a n d t h e r e l a t i v e l y i n d i s c r i m i n a t e u s e o f e v e r y f a c t o r a n d t e c h n i c a l i t y , w h e t h e r m a j o r o r m i n o r , b y w h i c h t h e y c a n s u p p o r t t h e i r p a r t y ' s c a s e , l a w y e r -n o m i n e e s w i l l t e n d t o o b f u s c a t e t h e i s s u e s s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e d i s p u t e ) . T a b l e X C V I I shows t h a t , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f a m a r k e d m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s , \" q u i t e a f e w \" l a w y e r s s e r v e on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s as n o m i n e e s — b u t , comments ( a s w e l l a s e v i d e n c e s u b s e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d t o ) i n d i c a t e , a l m o s t e n t i r e l y a s e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . Q u e s t i o n 15 s t a t e d t h a t some o f t h e p e r s o n s w i t h whom t h e a u t h o r h a d d i s c u s s e d C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s f e l t t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , l a w y e r s who s e r v e on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s a s n o m i n e e s t e n d t o u s e t h e same k i n d o f a p p r o a c h t h a t t h e y a r e u s e d t o u s i n g i n t h e i r j o b s as l a w y e r s — s u c h as c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , l e g a l i s t i c t h i n k i n g , a n d t h e u s e o f many t e c h n i c a l i t i e s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r c a s e . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e a b o u t how many o f t h e l a w y e r s who s e r v e on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s a s n o m i n e e s t h e y f e l t t h i s was t r u e o f . T a b l e X C V I I I s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s i s , more o f t e n t h a n n o t , t r u e o f s u c h l a w y e r s . F a r more u n i o n t h a n e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t t h i s i s t r u e o f most s u c h l a w y e r s . S e v e r a l p e r s o n s commented t h a t t h i s i s t r u e o n l y o f l a w y e r s who h a v e h a d l i t t l e o r no e x p e r i e n c e on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , b e c a u s e t h e y s o o n l e a r n t h a t c h a i r m e n do n o t a p p r e c i a t e s u c h b e h a v i o u r . How f r e q u e n t l y d o e s t h i s a p p r o a c h , when i t i s u s e d b y l a w y e r s who s e r v e as n o m i n e e s on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , t e n d t o a n t a g o n i z e somewhat t h e n o m inee r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e o t h e r s i d e ? T a b l e XCIX shows t h a t , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f a d e f i n i t e m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s , i t w o u l d u s u a l l y h a v e t h i s e f f e c t ( a n d w o u l d n o t , comments s u g g e s t e d , o n l y i f t h e o t h e r nominee were a l s o a l a w y e r ) . U n i o n a n d e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s show no c l e a v a g e o f o p i n i o n on t h i s p o i n t . Does t h i s a p p r o a c h , when i t i s u s e d b y l a w y e r s who s e r v e as n o m i n e e s on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , t e n d t o a n t a g o n i z e , some-what, t h e c h a i r m a n ? T a b l e C d e m o n s t r a t e s — a s was p r e d i c t e d b y t h e h y p o t h e s i s — t h a t i t o f t e n d o e s a n t a g o n i z e t h e c h a i r m a n , b u t t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t t h a t i t d o e s t h e o t h e r nominee. A markedly greater number of employer than union nominees f e l t that t h i s approach by lawyer-nominees would u s u a l l y antagonize the chairman. It seems almost c e r t a i n that the reason f o r t h i s i n t e r e s t i n g discrepancy is. that, as lawyers very frequently serve as employer nominees, but 25 almost never serve as union nominees, y more employer nominees w i l l , n a t u r a l l y , r e a l i z e that t h i s sort of behaviour tends to antagonize.the chairman (provided, comments once again s t i p u l a t e d , that the chairman i s not a lawyer; i f he, too, i s a lawyer, then he w i l l not be antagonized). Does t h i s approach, when i t is' used by lawyers who serve as nominees on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, tend to sidetrack the Board onto i r r e l e v a n t or minor issues? As Table CI ind i c a t e s , opinion i s somewhat scattered on t h i s point, but i t does seem apparent that t h i s does occur with some f r e -quency. (Several comments in d i c a t e d that a competent c h a i r -man would not permit t h i s to happen.) More union than employer nominees f e e l that t h i s i s r e l a t i v e l y often the c a s e — a cleavage which i s probably explained by the f a c t 25 Of the twenty-four union nominees from whom the author obtained completed or partially-completed questionnaires, twenty were union representatives or business agents, two were s t a t i s t i c i a n s employed e n t i r e l y by unions, one was an economist employed e n t i r e l y by unions, and one was an employee of the C.C.F. party; none were lawyers. Of the twenty-four employer nominees from whom the author obtained completed or partially-completed questionnaires, twelve were business executives, f i v e were management consultants, and seven were lawyers.' 159 t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s a r e a l m o s t n e v e r l a w y e r s , w h e r e a s t h e y o f t e n f a c e a n e m p l o y e r nominee who i s a l a w y e r . F i n a l l y , r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t h e i r o p i n i o n a s t o w h e t h e r o r n o t l a w y e r - n o m i n e e s who u s e t h i s a p p r o a c h h a v e l e s s c h a n c e t h a n o t h e r n o m i n e e s o f g e t t i n g c l o s e t o , o r r e a c h i n g , a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r members o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d . A s T a b l e C I I d e m o n s t r a t e s , a m a r k e d m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s i s g e n e r a l l y t r u e . On t h i s p o i n t n o m i n e e s f r o m b o t h s i d e s a r e p r e t t y much i n a g r e e m e n t ; i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f c h a i r m e n f e l t t h a t t h i s w o u l d n o t g e n e r a l l y be t h e c a s e . T h i s i s p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e f i v e o f t h e s e v e n c h a i r m e n i n v o l v e d a r e l a w y e r s . So f a r as t h e o r i g i n a l h y p o t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d , t h e n , what p i c t u r e a r i s e s f r o m t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e ? I t i s c l e a r t h a t l a w y e r s o f t e n s e r v e on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s as e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s ; t h a t many, b u t b y no means a l l o f t h e s e u s e t h e \" l a w y e r - a p p r o a c h \" r e f e r r e d t o ; t h a t t h i s d e f i n i t e l y d o e s a n t a g o n i z e t h e o t h e r n o minee ( p r e s u m a b l y u s u a l l y t h e u n i o n n o m i n e e ) , and t h e c h a i r m a n somewhat l e s s . T h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h i s \" a p p r o a c h \" d o e s , s o m e t i m e s , s i d e t r a c k t h e B o a r d o n t o i r r e l e v a n t o r m i n o r i s s u e s , b u t t h i s d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t i s much l e s s common t h a n t h a t o f a n t a g o n i s m on t h e p a r t o f t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . I t d o e s , a l s o , i seem c l e a r t h a t t h o s e l a w y e r - n o m i n e e s who u s e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r \" l a w y e r - a p p r o a c h \" ( o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , l e g a l i s t i c t h i n k i n g , a n d t h e u s e o f many t e c h n i c a l i t i e s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r c a s e ) h a v e l e s s c h a n c e o f r e a c h i n g o r a p p r o a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . The h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d t h e r e f o r e a p p e a r , b y a n d l a r g e , t o be c o n f i r m e d . N o m i n e e s f r o m b o t h s i d e s a g r e e t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s c o r r e c t f o r l a w y e r s who u s e t h e a p p r o a c h r e f e r r e d t o ; t h e y d i s a g r e e o n l y on t h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h i t i s a c t u a l l y u s e d , w i t h u n i o n n o m i n e e s p e r -c e i v i n g i t as i n r e l a t i v e l y f r e q u e n t u s e b y l a w y e r - n o m i n e e s ( p r e s u m a b l y b y e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s who a r e l a w y e r s ) and e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s p e r c e i v i n g i t a s i n r e l a t i v e l y i n f r e q u e n t u s e b y l a w y e r - n o m i n e e s ( p r e s u m a b l y b y t h e i r own l a w y e r -n o m i n e e s ) . T h i s i s , o f c o u r s e , u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , as u n i o n s a p p a r e n t l y a l m o s t n e v e r e m p l o y l a w y e r - n o m i n e e s , w h e r e a s e m p l o y e r s r a t h e r f r e q u e n t l y d o . T h o s e c l e a v a g e s o f o p i n i o n w h i c h a r o s e w o u l d seem t o be a f u n c t i o n o f t h e f a c t t h a t l a w y e r s s e r v e a l m o s t a l w a y s a s e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , b u t t h e y a l s o c o n s t i t u t e a f u r t h e r p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e o f t h e g r e a t e r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n o f u n i o n n o m i n e e s w i t h C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . 5. H y p o t h e s i s l ( v ) [ Q u e s t i o n 20; T a b l e C I I I ] was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e as a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m a n on a c h a i r m a n ' s a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e n o m i n e e s . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e amount o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e t h a t a c h a i r m a n h a s h a d c h a i r i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s c h a n c e s o f a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e 1 6 1 two nominees. The hypothesis was phrased i n the form of a question, and Table CTII gives the r e s u l t s . In the opinion of a very marked majority of respondents ( 7 6 . 4 % versus 1 . 8 % ) , the hypothesis u s u a l l y holds true (provided, some comments suggest, that he has remained an i m p a r t i a l chairman). The hypothesis may thus be accepted. The table contains an i n t e r e s t i n g difference of opinion: 8 7 . 5 % of the employer nominees—as opposed to 6 6 . 7 % of the union nominees—feel that experience u s u a l l y increases a chairman's chances of achieving agreement between the nominees. Obviously, then, more employer nominees have a:higher opinion of the value of experience f o r a chairman's c o n c i l i a t o r y a b i l i t y . This may t i e i n with previous evidence suggesting that chairmen more often s i g n with employer nominees when agreement cannot be reached; i f t h i s i s so, i t may tend to give union nominees le s s f a i t h than employer nominees i n the chairman's i m p a r t i a l i t y . Several persons with whom^the author discussed C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards in d i c a t e d that, most of the time, the two nominees are unable to agree on a mutually-satisfactory chairman, with the r e s u l t that the chairman must be appointed by the M i n i s t e r of Labour —who, i t was suggested, had a 2 6 Of the 6 5 0 disputes which were r e f e r r e d to C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards during the period of 1955-1959 i n c l u s i v e , and f o r which t h i s information i s a v a i l a b l e , i n 2 0 2 , or J l . 1 % of them, the nominees were able to agree upon a mutually-acceptable chairman, and i n 4 4 8 , or 6 8 . 9 % of them, they could not.agree t e n d e n c y , u n d e r t h e S o c i a l C r e d i t g o v e r n m e n t ( a c o n s e r -v a t i v e , \" f r e e - e n t e r p r i s e \" C a n a d i a n p a r t y ) , t o a p p o i n t p r o - e m p l o y e r , a n t i - l a b o u r c h a i r m e n . I f t h i s a l l e g a t i o n h a s a n y f o u n d a t i o n i n f a c t , i t c o u l d a c c o u n t f o r t h e r a t h e r m o d e s t e n t h u s i a s m shown f o r e x p e r i e n c e d c h a i r m e n b y u n i o n n o m i n e e s . 6. H y p o t h e s i s l ( v i ) [ Q u e s t i o n 21; T a b l e C I V ] f o c u s e d u p o n t h e e f f e c t o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e a s a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d nominee o n a n o m i n e e ' s a b i l i t y t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e amount o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e t h a t a nominee h a s h a d a s a nominee on C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s c h a n c e s o f r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e . The h y p o t h e s i s was p h r a s e d i n t h e f o r m o f a q u e s t i o n , t h e r e s u l t s o f w h i c h a p p e a r i n T a b l e C I V . A m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , i t w o u l d u s u a l l y h o l d t r u e — a f i n d i n g w h i c h , i n t h e a u t h o r ' s v i e w , w a r r a n t s t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e s i z e o f t h e m a j o r i t y , i n c o m p a r i s o n t o t h a t o b t a i n e d i n T a b l e C I I I w i t h r e f e r e n c e u p o n a c h a i r m a n and i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r t o a p p o i n t one. ( T h e s e s t a t i s t i c s were d e r i v e d f r o m t h e r e p o r t s o f t h e L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s B r a n c h o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o u r , a s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o u r f o r t h e y e a r s 1 9 5 5 - 1 9 5 9 i n c l u s i v e . ) to the previous hypothesis ( i n response to the question \"Do you think i t would generally he true that the greater the amount of previous experience that a chairman has had c h a i r i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, the greater w i l l be h i s chances of achieving agreement between the two nominees?\") i s s t r i k i n g l y reduced. This i s probably because, as a r e s u l t of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p a rtisanship, a nominee's competence w i l l , presumably, protect h i s party's i n t e r e s t at the expense of, to a c e r t a i n extent, the achievement of agreement with the other nominee. 7. The e f f e c t of previous experience as a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board nominee on a nominee's a b i l i t y to sign a Board report that i s to h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was the concern of Hypothesis l ( v i i ) [Question 22; Table CV]. I t was hypo-thesized that the greater the amount of previous experience that a nominee has had as a nominee on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, the greater h i s chances e i t h e r of getting the chairman to sign with him i n a majority report, or of getting a unanimous report that i s to h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . The hypothesis was phrased i n the form of a question, and the r e s u l t s , given i n Table CV, show that a majority of respondents (58.2% versus 14.5%) f e e l that i t would u s u a l l y hold true. In the author's opinion t h i s j u s t i f i e s the acceptance of the hypothesis. 8. Hypothesis l ( v i i i ) [Questions 23-24; Tables CVI - CVII] concentrated upon the e f f e c t of a chairman's f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the trade or i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n the d i s p u t e (gained, presumably, as a r e s u l t of h i s involvement i n some r o l e other than t h a t of chairman of an o p e r a t i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n Board) upon h i s a b i l i t y t o achieve agreement between the two nominees. I t was hypothesized t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , the more f a m i l i a r the chairman i s w i t h the trade or i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n the d i s p u t e , the g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s a b i l i t y t o get the two nominees to reach agreement. Would i t be g e n e r a l l y t r u e t h a t the more f a m i l i a r the chairman i s w i t h the trade or i n d u s t r y i n which the d i s p u t e has o c c u r r e d , the g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s a b i l i t y t o get the two nominees to reach agreement? Table CVI i n d i c a t e s , by a score of 67.2% versus 3*6%, t h a t t h i s i s u s u a l l y the case. Because i t seemed almost e q u a l l y reasonable t h a t the opposite c o u l d be t r u e , respondents were next asked whether or not they thought i t was g e n e r a l l y t r u e t h a t i f a chairman knows n o t h i n g about the trade or i n d u s t r y i n which the d i s p u t e has o c c u r r e d , then he w i l l have fewer preconceived i d e a s , and w i l l hence be more i m p a r t i a l and b e t t e r able to get the two nominees to agree than i f he knew a l o t about t h i s i n d u s t r y or t r a d e . Presumably, as the statements represent opposite v i e w p o i n t s , the percentages i n Tables CVI and CVII should have been, p r e t t y w e l l , r e v e r s a l s of each other. T h e o r e t i c a l l y , lumping the two top and the two bottom c a t e g o r i e s , and i n c l u d i n g the \"sometimes\" category separately, Table CVII should have read, roughly, from top to bottom, 3.6%,.. 23.6%, and 67.2%. Instead, i t reads 7.2%, 43 .6%, and 4-3.6%. This means that the percentage-response i n the top two categories has doubled, although i t i s s t i l l small, and, therefore, \"roughly\" the same. But the middle, or \"sometimes\" category has picked up 23.6% of the respondents at the expense of the two bottom categories. This s h i f t of opinion has, obviously, been caused by the rather persuasive r a t i o n a l e which was incorporated into Question 24, and the f a c t that, despite t h i s r a t i o n a l e , the second p o s s i b i l i t y i s nonetheless regarded as untrue more often than not would seem to warrant the conclusion that the hypothesis i s c o r r e c t . Table CVII contains an i n t e r e s t i n g v a r i a t i o n i n opinion: i t appears that employer nominees are somewhat more i n disagreement with the a n t i t h e s i s of the hypothesis than are union nominees. This, i t seems reasonable to speculate, i s probably because employer nominees are rather more apprehensive about what a chairman who knows nothing about the industry could do to t h e i r p a r t i e s , f e e l i n g that, i f the union nominee managed to persuade the chairman to sign a report that was considerably out of l i n e (and, presumably, i f the chairman knows nothing about the industry, h i s chances of doing so are much greater), t h i s would probably s u b s t a n t i a l l y increase the l i k e l i h o o d that an 166 e m p l o y e r w o u l d e v e n t u a l l y h a v e t o a c c e p t a r e p o r t w h i c h w o u l d h a v e d r a s t i c c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r h i m . e c o n o m i c a l l y . 9 . H y p o t h e s i s l ( i x ) [ Q u e s t i o n 25; T a b l e CVIII] was d e v o t e d t o t h e e f f e c t o f a n o m i n e e ' s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e t r a d e o r i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n t h e d i s p u t e ( g a i n e d , p r e s u m a b l y , a s a r e s u l t o f h i s i n v o l v e m e n t i n some r o l e o t h e r t h a n t h a t o f a nominee on an o p e r a t i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d ) u p o n h i s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f h i s p a r t y . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , t h e more f a m i l i a r a nominee i s w i t h t h e t r a d e o r i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n t h e d i s p u t e , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f h i s p a r t y b y b r i n g i n g a b o u t u n a n i m o u s o r m a j o r i t y r e p o r t s w h i c h t e n d t o s u p p o r t t h e p o s i t i o n o f h i s p a r t y . The h y p o t h e s i s was p h r a s e d i n t h e f o r m o f a q u e s t i o n , t h e r e s p o n s e t o w h i c h a p p e a r s i n T a b l e C V I I I . R e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e , b y a v e r y m a r k e d m a j o r i t y (78.1% v e r s u s 3.6%) t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p d e s c r i b e d i n t h e h y p o -t h e s i s w o u l d u s u a l l y h o l d t r u e . The h y p o t h e s i s must t h e r e f o r e be c o n s i d e r e d c o n f i r m e d . 10. H y p o t h e s i s l ( x ) [ Q u e s t i o n s 26 - 2 7 ; T a b l e s C I X - C X I ] was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f t h e membership o f a c h a i r m a n a n d a nominee i n t h e same o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s u p o n t h e s p e e d w i t h w h i c h t h e y a r e a b l e t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t 16? i f t h e c h a i r m a n a n d one o f t h e n o m i n e e s b e l o n g t o t h e same o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s , t h e y w i l l be more l i k e l y t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t more q u i c k l y t h a n i f t h e y b e l o n g e d t o d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l a n d s o c i a l c l a s s e s ( b e c a u s e , i t was assumed, t h e y w i l l t e n d t o h a v e s i m i l a r e c o n o m i c and p o l i t i c a l s y m p a t h i e s ) . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o g i v e t h e i r o p i n i o n as t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y how f r e q u e n t l y C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s c o n s i s t i n g o f a c h a i r m a n and one n o m inee who a r e b o t h b u s i n e s s o r p r o f e s s i o n a l men ( e i t h e r e m p l o y e d o r r e t i r e d ) , a n d one n o m inee who i s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e l a b o u r movement, o c c u r . The r e s u l t s a r e p r o v i d e d i n T a b l e CIX, w h i c h shows t h a t , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f an o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s (85.5% v e r s u s 1 . 8 % ) , t h i s i s u s u a l l y t h e c a s e . A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p e r c e n t a g e - r e s p o n s e s i n T a b l e C I X shows t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s f e e l t h i s i s t h e c a s e f a r more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n do e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . The most p r o b a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y i s t h a t t h e r e a r e a v e r y few p e r s o n s who h a v e s e r v e d a s c h a i r m e n (two, t o t h e a u t h o r ' s k n o w l e d g e ) who h a v e b e e n c o n n e c t e d i n t h e p a s t w i t h t h e l a b o u r movement. E m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s p r o b a b l y h a d t h e s e i n m i n d when t h e y r e s p o n d e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n . C o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h s e v e r a l u n i o n n o m i n e e s on t h e s u b j e c t o f c h a i r m e n who h a v e h a d a l a b o u r b a c k g r o u n d s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t o n l y l a b o u r men whose s y m p a t h i e s now l i e p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h management w i l l be made ( p r e s u m a b l y 168 as t h e r e s u l t o f a n a p p o i n t m e n t b y t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r ) C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d c h a i r m e n — a n d , i n d e e d , t h e f a c t t h a t one of. t h e two c h a i r m e n m e n t i o n e d now f u n s a n i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s f i r m c a t e r i n g t o e m p l o y e r s , a n d e v i d e n c e d , on h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , s t r o n g l y p r o - e m p l o y e r s e n t i m e n t s , w o u l d c e r t a i n l y seem t o p r o v i d e t h i s v i e w w i t h some s u p p o r t . T h u s , i t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e t h a t , w h i l e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s c o n s i d e r s u c h c h a i r m e n t o be \" c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e l a b o u r movement\", u n i o n n o m i n e e s do n o t , b e c a u s e t h e y f e e l t h a t t h e s y m p a t h i e s o f s u c h c h a i r m e n no l o n g e r l i e w i t h l a b o u r , a n d c l a s s i f y them w i t h \" b u s i n e s s o r p r o f e s s i o n a l men\" on t h i s b a s i s . H e n c e , u n i o n ' n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t B o a r d s o f t h e c o m p o s i t i o n d e s c r i b e d o c c u r f a r more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n do e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . On a C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d l i k e t h e one d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , w o u l d i t g e n e r a l l y be t r u e t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n a n d t h e n o m i nee who a r e b u s i n e s s o r p r o f e s s i o n a l men w o u l d be more l i k e l y t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t more q u i c k l y t h a n w o u l d t h e c h a i r m a n a n d t h e nominee c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e l a b o u r movement? The r e s u l t s o f t h i s q u e r y , g i v e n i n T a b l e CX, s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s i s f a i r l y f r e q u e n t l y t h e c a s e . S u r p r i s i n g l y e nough, t h e two g r o u p s o f n o m i n e e s seem t o be p r e t t y much i n a g r e e m e n t on t h i s p o i n t . I n o r d e r t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s be t e s t e d as f u l l y a s p o s s i b l e , r e s p o n d e n t s were now a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e a b o u t how f r e q u e n t l y t h e y f e l t t h a t C o n c i l i a t i o n . B o a r d s c o n -s i s t i n g o f a c h a i r m a n and one n o m i n e e who a r e b o t h c o n -n e c t e d w i t h t h e l a b o u r movement ( e i t h e r e m p l o y e d o r r e t i r e d ) , a n d one n o m inee who i s a b u s i n e s s o r p r o f e s s i o n a l man ( l i k e a l a w y e r ) , o c c u r . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s i n q u i r y a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e © X I . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , t h e p e r c e n t a g e - r e s p o n s e s i n T a b l e s C I X and CXI s h o u l d be a p p r o x i m a t e r e v e r s a l s o f one a n o t h e r . The f a c t t h a t t h i s i s n o t t h e c a s e , a p p a r e n t l y as a r e s u l t o f t h e s u g g e s t i b i l i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s , c o u l d c a l l i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i d i t y o f some o f t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d b y t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e employed.. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e , i n T a b l e C X I , a d i s p a r i t y i n o p i n i o n w h i c h p a r a l l e l s t h a t a p p a r e n t i n T a b l e CIX: e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s f e e l t h a t B o a r d s composed o f a c h a i r m a n and one nominee o f a l a b o u r b a c k -g r o u n d , a n d one nominee o f b u s i n e s s o r p r o f e s s i o n a l b a c k -g r o u n d , o c c u r c o n s i d e r a b l y more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n u n i o n n o m i n e e s f e e l t h e y d o . I n t h e a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n , t h e e x p l a n a t i o n a d d u c e d above i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a s i m i l a r d i s c r e p a n c y i n T a b l e C I X i s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s c a s e . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o p r o p o s e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e s e two d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n p e r c e p t i o n c o n s t i t u t e f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e t h a t u n i o n n o m i n e e s a r e more d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s t h a n a r e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s . As w i l l be a p p a r e n t f r o m an e x a m i n a t i o n o f Q u e s t i o n 2 7 ( a ) , Q u e s t i o n 2 7(b) was i n c o r r e c t l y p h r a s e d : i t s h o u l d h a v e i n q u i r e d a s t o w h e t h e r i t w o u l d g e n e r a l l y be true that the chairman and the nominee who are connected with the labour movement would be more l i k e l y to reach agreement more quickly than would the chairman and the nominee who i s a business or p r o f e s s i o n a l man, but, instead, i t was, mistakenly, simply a r e p e t i t i o n of Question 26(b), which i s described above i n connection with Table CX. Thus, unfortunately, nothing f u r t h e r was learned about t h i s second type of Board-In summation, then, i t appears that the type of Board described by the hypothesis—but one i n which a pr o f e s s i o n a l man or businessman, rather than a man with a labour background, i s chairman—does occur with very great frequency, and that i t appears, with some frequency, to have the e f f e c t predicted by the hypothesis—but, only, apparently, to the advantage of employers.. At the same time, of course, the f a c t o r of s u g g e s t i b i l i t y would seem to be s u f f i c i e n t l y evident to cast some measure of doubt upon the data obtained by the questionnaire with reference to t h i s hypothesis. In the author's opinion, the hypothesis should therefore be granted only tentative acceptance. 11. The e f f e c t of the membership of a chairman and a nominee i n the same occupational and s o c i a l c l a s s upon the l i k e l i h o o d of t h e i r i s s u i n g , should unanimity not be achieved, the majority report, was the focus of Hypothesis l ( x i ) [Questions 28-29; Tables CXII - CXIII]. I t was 171 hypothesized t h a t i f the chairman and one of the nominees belong to the same o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l c l a s s , they w i l l , i f unanimity i s not achieved, tend to be more l i k e l y to i s s u e the m a j o r i t y r e p o r t than they would i f they belonged to d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l c l a s s e s . Respondents were asked t o suppose t h a t the chairman and one of the nominees are both business or p r o f e s s i o n a l men, and t h a t the other nominee i s connected w i t h the labour movement. With such a Board, would i t g e n e r a l l y be t r u e t h a t , i f unanimity were not achieved, the chairman and the nominee who i s a business or p r o f e s s i o n a l man would tend to.be more l i k e l y to s i g n a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t than would the chairman and the nominee connected w i t h the labour movement? The response to t h i s q u e s t i o n , given i n Table C X I I j suggests t h a t t h i s i s r a t h e r f r e q u e n t l y the case. More than three times as many union as employer nominees f e e l t h a t i t o f t e n occurs, which suggests t h a t union nominees f e e l t h a t they and t h e i r p a r t i e s are f r e q u e n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t on t h i s b a s i s . Such Boards, i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , appear to be v e r y common, which adds f u r t h e r support t o t h i s union c o n t e n t i o n . Whether or not t h i s i s a c t u a l l y the case, i t seems, at l e a s t , t h a t i t i s p e r c e i v e d by union nominees as being so; of course, on the other hand, the element of s u g g e s t i b i l i t y i n the qu e s t i o n c o u l d have e l i c i t e d a some-what m i s l e a d i n g response from union nominees. Respondents were now asked, i n Question 2 9 , t o suppose that the chairman and one of the nominees are both connected with the labour movement, and that the other nominee i s a business or p r o f e s s i o n a l man, l i k e a lawyer. Would i t generally be true that, i f unanimity were not achieved, the chairman and the nominee who are connected with the labour movement would tend to be more l i k e l y to sign a majority report than would the chairman and the nominee who i s a business or p r o f e s s i o n a l man? Table CXIII shows that, i n the opinion of most respondents, t h i s would u s u a l l y be the case. However, as Table CXI has already demonstrated that such Boards are very r a r e — a f i n d i n g supported by comments appended to Question 2 9 a b o v e — t h i s f i n d i n g cannot, therefore, be considered a p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t one. Employer nominees f e e l , somewhat more strongly than do union nominees, that what the question proposes would tend to be the case; t h i s , i t seems reasonable to suppose, i s p r i n c i p a l l y a function of the reluctance of union nominees to respond to a s i t u a t i o n which they f e e l to be almost e n t i r e l y h y p o t hetical. In summation then, i t appears that, on the basis of the information set f o r t h i n Tables CXII and CXIII, the hypothesis has received enough support to warrant tentative acceptance—keeping i n mind that, as a r e s u l t of the data brought to l i g h t i n connection with both the present hypo-t h e s i s and the one which immediately preceded i t , the s i t u a t i o n described i n the hypothesis i s l i k e l y to benefit . employers only. 173 The r e s u l t s of the t e s t i n g of a l l of the hypo-theses have now been presented. However, as a crude check upon the r e l a t i v e comprehensiveness of the questionnaire, respondents were asked whether there were any fac t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the operation of C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards which they f e l t had been e i t h e r inadequately covered or not covered at a l l i n the questionnaire, and, i f they f e l t there were, they were requested to outline these f a c t o r s and t h e i r thoughts about them i n the half-page of space provided. The vast majority of respondents d i d not respond at a l l to the question. While a few of these may not have done so simply as a r e s u l t of fat i g u e , i t seems reasonable to suppose that most of those who had any p a r t i c u l a r opinions as to the inadequacies o f the questionnaire would have been moved to express themselves, i f only b r i e f l y . Further, no p a r t i c u l a r pattern emerged from the comments which were made; indeed, several respondents indicated that the questionnaire had, i n t h e i r opinion, covered p r e t t y f u l l y the fac t o r s involved. It therefore seems reasonable to the author to conclude that no f a c t o r s of any p a r t i c u l a r importance appear to have been neglected. With an eye to possible recommendations f o r changes i n the structure or operation of C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, e i t h e r i n support of, or i n addition to, those obviously suggested by the r e s u l t s of the t e s t i n g of the hypotheses, respondents were asked what, i f anything, they thought was wrong with t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y as I t e x i s t s a t p r e s e n t ; what, i f any, c h a n g e s t h e y w o u l d l i k e t o s e e made i n t h i s m a c h i n e r y , and why? R e l a t i v e l y few o f t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s p u t f o r w a r d were s u p p o r t e d b y more t h a n a h a n d f u l o f p e r s o n s . The most p o p u l a r s u g g e s t i o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e number an d a f f i l i a t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n s s u p p o r t i n g them, a r e o u t l i n e d b e l o w . The l a r g e s t s i n g l e b l o c k o f o p i n i o n h e l d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t m a c h i n e r y was q u i t e a d e q u a t e . I t t o t a l l e d f i f t e e n r e s p o n d e n t s , s i x o f whom ( t h r e e u n i o n n o m i n e e s , two e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , and one c h a i r m a n ) d e c l a r e d t h i s i n w r i t i n g ; t h e s e were j o i n e d , p r e s u m a b l y , b y n i n e p e r s o n s ( f o u r u n i o n n o m i n e e s , f o u r e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , a n d one c h a i r m a n ) who c o m p l e t e d t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s b u t d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o t h i s q u e s t i o n — w h i c h t h e r e f o r e s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e y a r e r e l a t i v e l y c o n t e n t w i t h t h e p r e s e n t c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y . The most p o p u l a r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t e s t a b l i s h a p e r m a n e n t p a n e l o f c h a i r m e n who h a v e p r o v e n t h e i r a c c e p t a b i l i t y t o b o t h s i d e s and who w o u l d s e r v e on B o a r d s i n a u t o m a t i c r o t a t i o n as c a s e s a r o s e . ( T h i s s u g g e s t i o n was s u p p o r t e d b y t e n p e r s o n s : s i x u n i o n n o m i n e e s , t h r e e e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , a n d one c h a i r m a n . ) T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t c h a i r m e n a r e , u n d e r t h e p r e s e n t s y s t e m o f a p p o i n t m e n t , o f t e n r e g a r d e d as u n s a t i s f a c t o r y b y one o r b o t h o f t h e p a r t i e s . S i x p e r s o n s ( f o u r u n i o n a n d two e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s ) f e l t t h a t C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s a r e o f t e n r e g a r d e d s i m p l y as a n o t h e r , r a t h e r t h a n t h e f i n a l , s t e p i n t h e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s , a n d h e n c e p a r t i e s t e n d , o f t e n , n o t t o r e v e a l t h e i r t r u e p o s i t i o n s i n a n e f f o r t t o g a i n , o r a v o i d l o s i n g , t h e b a r g a i n i n g a d v a n t a g e b y a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t t h e o t h e r p a r t y t o p u t t h e m s e l v e s i n a p o s i t i o n o f g i v i n g as much as p o s s i b l e i n r e t u r n f o r a s l i t t l e as p o s s i b l e . T h e y t h e r e f o r e s u g -g e s t e d t h a t , i f C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r s were g i v e n more power t o e f f e c t a s e t t l e m e n t , B o a r d s w o u l d be r e q u i r e d l e s s o f t e n . T h i s c o u l d be a c c o m p l i s h e d b y r a i s i n g t h e s a l a r i e s o f t h e O f f i c e r s i n o r d e r t o .get p e r s o n s o f g r e a t p r e s t i g e who c o u l d command t h e r e s p e c t o f t h e p a r t i e s a n d t h e p u b l i c . Some o f t h e j u d i c i a r y , a n d some u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s , were s u g g e s t e d as t h e most s u i t a b l e men f o r t h e j o b . A n o t h e r s u g g e s t i o n , p u t f o r w a r d b y f i v e r e s p o n d e n t s (two u n i o n a n d two e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s an d one c h a i r m a n ) , was t h a t t h e c u r r e n t m a c h i n e r y f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s be a b o l i s h e d , and, i n s t e a d , a p o o l o f p e r m a n e n t B o a r d members be e s t a b l i s h e d , w i t h c h a i r m e n a c c e p t a b l e t o b o t h s i d e s , and a number o f p e r m a n e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m l a b o u r a n d f r o m management. T h i s s u g g e s t i o n was made f o r t h e same r e a s o n as t h e p r e c e d i n g one: p a r t i e s o f t e n do n o t b a r g a i n on t h e B o a r d s \" i n g o o d f a i t h \" — w h i c h means t h a t t h e y a r e c o n c e r n e d a t t h e B o a r d s t a g e s i m p l y w i t h a t t e m p t i n g t o g a i n a b a r g a i n i n g a d v a n t a g e o v e r t h e o t h e r p a r t y r a t h e r t h a n w i t h attempting to reach agreement. Var i o u s forms of compulsory a r b i t r a t i o n , w i t h out, of course, the p o s s i b i l i t y of a work stoppage and i n c l u d i n g a means f o r appealing a d e c i s i o n were suggested by f i v e persons ( f o u r employer nominees and one chairman). Four persons (three union nominees, and one employer nominee) wanted some means.of a s s u r i n g t h a t a l l of the i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t i n e n t to the d i s p u t e i s i n c l u d e d by the p a r t i e s i n the b r i e f s which they submit t o the Board. A p p a r e n t l y p a r t i e s o f t e n w i t h h o l d some such p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n i n order t h a t they may attempt to use i t to t h e i r advantage i n post-board n e g o t i a t i o n s . One means suggested t o circumvent t h i s technique was the establishment by the government of an i m p a r t i a l r e s e a r c h department the t a s k of which would be t o supply the Board w i t h a l l of the data and i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t i n e n t t o the d i s p u t e . The remainder of the respondents who completed t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s made a number of suggestions, a l l of which a t t r a c t e d even l e s s support than those a l r e a d y c i t e d . I n summation, i t seems apparent t h a t , s o l e l y on the b a s i s of the amount of support given the above sug-g e s t i o n s as a response t o a q u e s t i o n i n q u i r i n g about d e s i r a b l e changes i n c o n c i l i a t i o n machinery, the imple-mentation of any of them co u l d not be j u s t i f i e d . I f , 177 however, any of these s u g g e s t i o n s can be t i e d i n w i t h recommendations o b v i o u s l y suggested by an examination of the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the m a t e r i a l put f o r w a r d i n t h i s c h a p t e r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the hypotheses, t h i s would not n e c e s s a r i l y , of c o u r s e , be the c a s e . CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that the twofold concern of t h i s t h e s i s was, f i r s t l y , to attempt to determine whether or not i n e f f i c i e n c i e s e x i s t i n c e r t a i n aspects of the structure and operation of C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards i n that these aspects i n e f f e c t work against the accomplishment of the avowed purpose of the Boards, which i s to achieve agreement between the disputing p a r t i e s and thus avoid a stoppage of work; and, secondly, to attempt to discover the p r i n c i p a l causal f a c t o r s involved i n the process and outcome of the i n t e r a c t i o n of C o n c i l i a t i o n Board personnel when a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board i s constituted f o r the purpose of attempting to achieve agreement between the two disputing p a r t i e s . The r e s u l t s of the t e s t s of the hypotheses w i l l now be examined i n the l i g h t of t h i s twofold purpose: the findings of the t e s t s w i l l be summarized, the conclusions to which they give r i s e w i l l be r e c a p i t u l a t e d b r i e f l y , any recommendations which seem indicated w i l l be put forward, and, i n a f i n a l section, these recommendations w i l l be summarized, and any general trends of i n t e r e s t suggested by a consideration of. . a l l of the cleavages of opinion, and conclusions, w i l l be described and t h e i r 178 179 s i g n i f i c a n c e d i s c u s s e d . I t seems p r o b a b l e t h a t some r e a d e r s , a t l e a s t , w i l l h a v e r e a c t e d somewhat n e g a t i v e l y t o t h e t h e s i s a s i t h a s t h u s f a r b e e n p r e s e n t e d , and w i l l o n l y h a v e t h e i r f e e l i n g s o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t e n s i f i e d b y t h e m a t e r i a l w h i c h r e m a i n s , on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t i s e x c e s s i v e l y d i s j o i n t e d a nd u n t h e m a t i c . S u c h r e a d e r s s h o u l d be r e m i n d e d t h a t t h e t w o f o l d p u r p o s e o f t h e t h e s i s n e c e s s i t a t e d , u n a v o i d a b l y , a c o n c e r n w i t h a m u l t i t u d e o f f a c t o r s most o f w h i c h were r e l a t e d a l m o s t o n l y i n s o f a r a s t h e i r common s o u r c e was C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s , and t h a t where s u c h f a c t o r s were r e l a t e d , o r where t h e t e s t i n g o f v a r i o u s a p p a r e n t l y u n r e l a t e d f a c t o r s b r o u g h t t o l i g h t some common p a t t e r n , t h i s h a s b e e n d u l y n o t e d . A. E x t e r n a l F a c t o r s P u b l i c O p i n i o n I t was f e l t t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n w o u l d t e n d t o s u p p o r t t h e B o a r d r e p o r t , a n d t h a t t h i s w o u l d b r i n g p r e s s u r e t o b e a r on t h e n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e t o t h e r e p o r t o f t h e B o a r d , and h e n c e t o a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t , i t b e i n g assumed t h a t f a i l u r e t o do so w o u l d r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f p u b l i c s y m p a t h y f o r t h e d i s s e n t i n g p a r t y . I t a p p e a r s t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s s e e n as t e n d i n g t o s u p p o r t t h e B o a r d r e p o r t , a n d t h a t t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t w o u l d t e n d t o r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n o f p u b l i c s y m p a t h y f o r t h e d i s -s e n t i n g p a r t y , b u t t h a t t h i s w i l l n o t b r i n g any s i g n i f i c a n t p r e s s u r e t o b e a r u p o n n o m i n e e s t o a g r e e t o a u n a n i m o u s r e p o r t . I t was a p p a r e n t , f u r t h e r , t h a t , a l t h o u g h a m a j o r i t y o f e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s do n o t f e e l t h i s way, e m p l o y e r s a r e , r e l a t i v e t o u n i o n s , more d e p e n d e n t u p o n p u b l i c g o o d - w i l l , more s e n s i t i v e t o a l o s s o f p u b l i c s ympathy, and more l i k e l y t o a l t e r t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n o r d e r t o a v o i d s u b m i t t i n g a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t , t h a n a r e u n i o n s . I t was s u p p o s e d t h a t t h e r e were two m a i n r e a s o n s t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n a c t e d a s a p r e s s u r e on t h e p a r t i e s t o a c h i e v e a g r e e m e n t , t h e f i r s t b e i n g t h a t , i f t h e e m p l o y e r s e l l s g o o d s o r s e r v i c e s d i r e c t l y t o t h e p u b l i c , he d o e s n o t w i s h t o l o s e o r l e s s e n p u b l i c g o o d - w i l l b y a s t r i k e o r l o c k o u t , a n d t h e s e c o n d b e i n g t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s a p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e o f unwelcome l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d a l t e r t h e p r e s e n t c o n c i l i a t i o n m a c h i n e r y i f i t d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be e f f e c t i v e i n a c h i e v i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . The f i r s t r e a s o n r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t , b u t n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y i t s b e i n g r e g a r d e d a s a r e a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r ; i t was s u p p o r t e d more s t r o n g l y b y e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s , no d o u b t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e more c l o s e l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e p r o b l e m . The r e s p o n s e g i v e n t h e s e c o n d r e a s o n i n d i c a t e s d e c i s i v e l y t h a t i t i s a n u n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n \"the o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . I t was r e v e a l e d , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e t e s t i n g o f t h e s e c o n d r e a s o n , t h a t 181 a number of i n d i v i d u a l s on both the employer and the union s i d e are e x p l i c i t l y opposed t o the s u b s t i t u t i o n of compulsory a r b i t r a t i o n f o r the c o n c i l i a t i o n process; t h i s r e a c t i o n , coupled w i t h the f a c t t h a t no union nominees, and o n l y a few other C o n c i l i a t i o n Board personnel supported the suggestion of compulsory a r b i t r a t i o n at the end of Chapter I I I , would seem to render i t an u n r e a l i s t i c recommendation. I t was proposed t h a t the normative approach on the p a r t of the chairman would be capable of succeeding at a l l o n l y i n those i n d u s t r i e s or trades which were l a r g e , of great importance to the e n t i r e economy, and hence s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n , because t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y would serve to persuade them to go along w i t h the normative chairman i n order t o a v o i d p u b l i c wrath and p o s s i b l e l e g i s l a t i o n . F u r t h e r , i t was proposed t h a t , i n i n d u s t r i e s of r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e concern t o the p u b l i c , accommodative c o n c i l i a t i o n i s the o n l y v a r i e t y t h a t i s l i k e l y to be e f f e c t i v e . The data i n d i c a t e t h a t accommodative c o n c i l i a t i o n i s overwhelmingly p r e f e r r e d , r e g a r d l e s s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the i n d u s t r y t o the economy and the p u b l i c , which c e r t a i n l y confirms the i d e a t h a t accommodative c o n c i l i a t i o n i s the o n l y v a r i e t y t h a t i s l i k e l y to be e f f e c t i v e i n an i n d u s t r y of r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l concern to the p u b l i c . F u r t h e r , the data do tend to support a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t normative c o n c i l i a t i o n has a g r e a t e r chance of b e i n g e f f e c t i v e i n an i n d u s t r y t h a t i s important and hence s e n s i t i v e to p u b l i c o p i n i o n , but the d i f f e r e n c e s are not s u f f i c i e n t l y large to permit t h i s to he other than the most tentative of conclusions. As f o r the r a t i o n a l e of the hypothesis, the data suggest that the s e n s i t i v i t y of an industry to public opinion seems to p a r a l l e l i t s importance to the economy, but i t i s c l e a r l y not the case that t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y i s caused by a fear of r e s t r i c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n with respect to c o n c i l i a t i o n procedures. The idea was put forward that, where the dispute occurred i n a large industry of great importance to the economy, and one, hence, r e l a t i v e l y s e n s i t i v e to p u b l i c opinion, the chairman would perceive h i s r o l e as r e q u i r i n g that he show concern f o r the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by acting i n predominantly normative terms. While a s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher proportion of the respondents aver that chairmen would f e e l an o b l i g a t i o n to protect the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t under such circumstances than those who declared the contrary, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the vote was almost equally divided on the question of whether chairmen would i n f a c t behave normatively—which i s the method the author envisaged as the one that would protect the public i n t e r e s t . This d i s -crepancy, coupled with an unusually high non-response rate, as well as the support of a markedly greater proportion of chairmen than of nominees f o r the normative technique, suggests that nominees do perceive that the normative method w i l l better protect the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , but that, nonetheless, they do not l i k e i t and are hence u n w i l l i n g 183 to vote f o r i t . It was suggested that the majority.of nominees who represented labour or management groups involved i n an industry s e n s i t i v e to p u b l i c opinion would avoid exaggerated i n i t i a l bargaining p o s i t i o n s and be r e l a t i v e l y x ^ i l l i n g to make mutual concessions as a r e s u l t of t h e i r desire to avoid the possible r e s t r i c t i v e l y l e g i s l a t i v e consequences of p u b l i c wrath. Previous data have already established that the f a c t o r of adverse p u b l i c opinion r e s u l t i n g i n unwelcome l e g i s l a t i o n i n the area of c o n c i l i a t i o n machinery i s not one that exercises any appreciable influence. Wore respondents f e e l (although t h e i r numerical s u p e r i o r i t y over those who f e e l otherwise i s not great) that nominees from such an industry do not, as a r u l e , make t h e i r demands and o f f e r s l e s s extreme on t h i s account. However, the f a c t that nominees come from such an industry w i l l , i n the opinion of the greater number, cause them to be more w i l l i n g to compromise than they would be otherwise. A general consideration of the data r e l a t i n g to the f i v e foregoing hypotheses would seem to suggest that, although several facets of these hypotheses received some support, p u b l i c opinion does not, i n the main ( w i t h — although t h i s was not t e s t e d — t h e probable exception of p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s ) appear to be a causal f a c t o r of any great s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the operation of C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards. 184 I t was conjectured that, where a nominee repre-sented a party with f a i r l y marked s u p e r i o r i t y of bargaining power, the nominee would prefer that the chairman adopt an accommodative approach, and that, conversely, a nominee representing a party with the l e s s e r bargaining power would prefer that the chairman adopt a normative approach. The hypothesis receives only a small measure of support from the data, and must therefore be r e j e c t e d . However, the data do point up some i n t e r e s t i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s . For one thing, although the smallness of the quantities involved precludes any d e f i n i t e conclusions, a s h i f t of opinion d i s c e r n i b l e i n the data suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y that, when a nominee represents the weaker party, he does not want to s h i f t from a purely accommodative technique a l l the way to a purely normative one, but merely to a combination of both techniques. The evidence f o r t h i s i s , of course, so lean as to permit i t to be no more than a tentative speculation. A f u r t h e r cleavage of i n t e r e s t i s that, i n Table XXV, more employer nominees than union nominees indicate a preference f o r the normative chairman. This i s the l o g i c a l answer, whether or not the hypothesis i s a c t u a l l y correct, and the d i s -crepancy could p o s s i b l y be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the probable higher educational attainment o f employer nominees. It was postulated that, under conditions that are s u f f i c i e n t l y complex that they w i l l not be r e c a p i t u l a t e d here (the reader i s r e f e r r e d to the d e s c r i p t i v e material 185 on Hypothesis 2 ( x v i i i ) i n Chapter II)., where a -unanimous report i s not m a t e r i a l i z i n g , an accommodative chairman w i l l declare h i s i n t e n t i o n , should a unanimous report not he forthcoming, of signing a majority report with the nominee with the greater bargaining power; t h i s serves as a means of exerting pressure f o r agreement upon the nominees. 40.0% of the respondents support the hypothesis,, and an equally large number (43.6%) do not, i n d i c a t i n g that, i n t h e i r opinion, the bargaining power of.the p a r t i e s i s an i r r e l e v a n t consideration f o r a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board chairman, because they f e e l that he ought to decide between the nominees, should t h i s be necessary, s o l e l y on the basis of the evidence presented to the Board. The f a c t that a l l four of the chairmen who comment express t h i s view, and that none of the chairmen i n the sample support the hypothesis, provides further evidence against i t . Thus, although the hypothesis receives a good deal of support, an equally large body of opinion r e j e c t s i t . Differences of opinion contained i n the data may mean that union nominees are more apprehensive about s u f f e r i n g as the r e s u l t of such a s i t u a t i o n — a n d , perhaps, that they have some basis i n f a c t f o r these imputed f e a r s . I f so, t h i s could be viewed as evidence that union nominees are generally more d i s s a t i s f i e d with the operation of C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards than are employer nominees. So f a r as the r a t i o n a l e f o r the hypothesis i s concerned, while 40.0% of the respondents support the 1 8 6 hypothesis, only 23.6% f e e l that the majority of chairmen i n such a s i t u a t i o n would behave i n the hypothesized way as a r e s u l t of the r a t i o n a l e put forward by the author. Thus, support f o r t h i s r a t i o n a l e d e f i n i t e l y e x i s t s , but not i n any substantial quantity. I t was surmised that,, where a dispute i n an industry s e n s i t i v e to p u b l i c opinion i s characterized by a h o s t i l e (rather than a c o n c i l i a t o r y ) a t t i t u d e , normatively-oriented a c t i v i t y on the part of the chairman w i l l be the only e f f e c t i v e technique f o r i n f l u e n c i n g the two nominees i n the d i r e c t i o n of, or perhaps to, agreement. Although the hypothesis i s not confirmed i n the sense that a markedly greater number of respondents favour the normative technique than do not, i t receives rather s u b s t a n t i a l support. Part of the r a t i o n a l e f o r the hypothesis held that the accom-modative method would be the l e s s e f f e c t i v e one because nominees subjected to i t would refuse to abandon t h e i r i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n s . The data do not support t h i s idea. I t was suggested that the press would be per-ceived by the nominees as the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e r of public opinion about the dispute, and would therefore constitute f o r the nominees a source of pressure toward agreement. Although nominees seem to agree that the press i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e r of p u b l i c opinion about the dispute, t h i s does not, as a rule * mean that the press c o n s t i t u t e s a p r e s s u r e on t h e n o m i n e e s t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t . T h i s r e s u l t s u p p o r t s o u r e a r l i e r j u d g e m e n t t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be a c a u s a l f a c t o r o f a n y p a r t i -c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d s . I t was h e l d t h a t , when a d i s p u t e h a s o c c u r r e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l community, an d when b o t h n o m i n e e s a r e members o f t h a t community, b o t h n o m i n e e s w i l l p e r c e i v e t h e i r r o l e s a s r e q u i r i n g more c o n c i l i a t o r y b e h a v i o u r t h a n w o u l d t h e i r u r b a n c o u n t e r p a r t s . The d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s c o r r e c t , b u t t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h a r e n e c e s s a r y t o i t s o p e r a t i o n do n o t o f t e n o c c u r i n t h a t B o a r d s f o r m e d t o a t t e m p t t o c o n c i l i a t e d i s p u t e s i n s m a l l c o m m u n i t i e s do n o t , w i t h any g r e a t f r e q u e n c y , h a v e b o t h n o m i n e e s f r o m t h e community. S o m e t i m e s , h o w e v e r , i t a p p e a r s t h a t a \" m i x e d \" c a s e , i n w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e r nominee i s a r e s i d e n t o f t h e community, a n d t h e u n i o n nominee a n o n -r e s i d e n t , o c c u r s . I t seems most p r o b a b l e t h a t , i n s u c h a \" m i x e d \" c a s e , t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d p r e s s u r e s w o u l d b e a r u p o n t h e r e s i d e n t n o m i n e e , b u t t h a t t h e i r e f f e c t u p o n h i m , a n d u p o n t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s e s o f t h e B o a r d , w o u l d be much r e d u c e d . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s — t h a t r e s i d e n t n o m i n e e s w o u l d be more l i k e l y t o r e a c h a g r e e m e n t b e c a u s e t h e i n d u s t r y c o n c e r n e d w o u l d , i n a s m a l l community, a c c o u n t f o r a l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e employment t h a n w o u l d be l i k e l y i n a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e community, an d p u b l i c o p i n i o n w o u l d t h e r e f o r e e x e r t a c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e s s u r e f o r agreement—was, by and large, supported. The f a c t that employer nominees support the hypothesis much more strongly than do union nominees suggests that employer nominees make l i b e r a l use, on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, of the argument that the old agreement should be maintained, or one as close as possible to i t adopted, i n order that the pu b l i c not s u f f e r by v i r t u e of the p r i c e increases that wage increases w i l l n e cessitate, or su f f e r the serious d i s r u p t i o n of a s t r i k e , whereas unions are, i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , steeled against such arguments and strongly u n w i l l i n g to weaken t h e i r cases by granting such, arguments legitimate status. I t was f e l t that i f the tone which has .characterized the bargaining r e l a t i o n s h i p of the two disputing p a r t i e s i n the past has been one of h o s t i l i t y and/or contempt, then nominees w i l l be chosen f o r t h e i r tough partisanship. Given such a bargaining h i s t o r y , and such nominees., i t was f e l t , f u r t h e r , that bargaining r e l a t i o n s would be conducted by the nominees as a form of warfare, the motive behind which was as much desire to weaken the other group as i t was to gain concessions f o r one's own group. The data indicate that, with such a bargaining h i s t o r y , p a r t i e s w i l l be very l i k e l y to choose nominees f o r t h e i r tough partisanship, and that, with such nominees s i t t i n g on the same Board, the \"warfare\" concept mentioned above would be very l i k e l y to p r e v a i l . The f a c t that employer nominees support these ideas more strongly than do union nominees suggests that such behaviour i s more t y p i c a l of employer nominees. It was supposed that a chairman would bring pressure to achieve agreement to bear upon the nominee whose party has presented the poorer evidence, through the use of the superior evidence. The data indicate that, as a rule i n disputes before C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, one side presents evidence that i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y superior to the evidence presented by the other side, and that, when t h i s i s the case, chairmen w i l l u s u a l l y use the better evidence to t r y to persuade the nominee representing the party with the poorer evidence to change h i s p o s i t i o n and come to, or nearer to, agreement with the other nominee. The f a c t that employer nominees seem to believe, somewhat more strongly than do union nominees, that the chairman w i l l behave i n t h i s way under such circumstances, could mean that t h i s i s more l i k e l y to be so i f the superior evidence i s possessed by the employer. It was proposed that the l e g a l requirement of party-nominated representatives i s f u n c t i o n a l to the goal of agreement between the nominees i n that i t r e s u l t s i n i n t e r - p a r t y communication with reference to the p o s i t i o n of each; i t can hence make known to each nominee what the other i s w i l l i n g to grant or accept i n each matter i n dispute, t h i s knowledge being viewed as the most important necessary condition to reaching agreement. The data confirm these ideas. 190 I t was suggested as w e l l , however, that the l e g a l 'it'. requirement of party-nominated representatives was also dysfunctional to the goal of nominees reaching or approaching agreement i n that i t introduces the f a c t o r of partisanship, which, i t was f e l t , would tend to make nominees f e e l that the greatest possible p r o t e c t i o n of the i n t e r e s t s of t h e i r party i s more important than reaching agreement with the other nominee. The data show that nominees chosen by both sides are u s u a l l y p a r t i s a n , and u s u a l l y regard t h e i r jobs i n the way described. Employer nominees are, however, more relu c t a n t than are union nominees to admit to t h i s . Other information of i n t e r e s t was also uncovered that r e l a t e s to t h i s hypothesis. I t appears that the commonest reason f o r t h i s partisanship, is- membership i n the same economic com-munity as one's nominator, which gives one personal knowledge of, and sympathy with, the problems of one's nominator. Another point of i n t e r e s t i s that the payment of nominees f o r t h e i r services i s not a f a c t o r that appears to be i n f l u e n t i a l i n the c r e a t i o n of partisanship, except, probably, i n the case of employer nominees who are lawyers or i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s consultants, who appear to be the only nominees who are paid. The data i n d i c a t e , further, that a party i s usually able to get i t s nominee to do what i t wants on the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board. The preceding two hypotheses have, as should be obvious, been concerned with the \" e f f i c i e n c y , \" f o r the Board's goal of agreement, of the use of p a r t i s a n nominees, and, to t h i s point, the scale seems to he almost evenly balanced: p a r t i s a n nominees can serve as e f f i c i e n t com-municators of information h i g h l y necessary to the .settlement of the dispute, but, at the same time, t h e i r partisanship appears, u s u a l l y , to work against agreement being reached. This evidence would seem to suggest that C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards would probably operate more e f f e c t i v e l y i f they were composed of i m p a r t i a l persons. However, opinion was r e l a t i v e l y evenly divided between those ( 4 3 . 6 % ) who f e l t p a r t i s a n nominees produce more e f f e c t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n because they are l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n more information p e r t a i n i n g to the dispute being brought, by both sides, to the attention of the Board, which i s more l i k e l y to produce a s a t i s f a c t o r y compromise, as well as a Board that both p a r t i e s can t r u s t ; and those ( 3 6 . 4 % ) who favoured i m p a r t i a l nominees f o r the most e f f e c t i v e c o n c i l i a t i o n because they f e l t that such nominees would adhere to the evidence more r e a d i l y , and reach unanimous decisions more e a s i l y , which would, i n the opinion of t h i s group of respondents, u s u a l l y be accepted by the disputing p a r t i e s . The evidence has thus produced p r e t t y much of a stalemate: almost as many favour p a r t i s a n nominees as want a change to i m p a r t i a l nominees; c l e a r l y , then, a recommendation that the present system be maintained would be as j u s t i f i e d as a recommendation that i m p a r t i a l nominees be required to s i t on Boards. One further point of i n t e r e s t i s that v a r i a t i o n s of opinion i n the data suggest that unions tend to regard themselves as an embattled group who f e e l that t h e i r desires are u n l i k e l y to be met on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards unless they e n l i s t the services of a p a r t i s a n nominee who w i l l represent them as an advocate. It was suggested that nominees would use, on the Board, a technique of asking questions much of which i s p a r t i s a n i n that i t i s designed to strengthen the p o s i t i o n of the party the nominee represents, and hence h i s own p o s i t i o n , and weaken that of the other nominee and h i s party. The data i n d i c a t e most d e f i n i t e l y that t h i s i s the case, which provides further evidence of the p a r t i s a n a t t i t u d e s and behaviour of most nominees. The idea was advanced that each nominee would perceive h i s appropriate r o l e as c o n s i s t i n g p r i n c i p a l l y i n the two functions of attempting to f i n d out what the other party i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g to grant or to accept, and of attempting to protect, to the greatest possible extent, the i n t e r e s t s of the party he represents. The data show c l e a r l y that nominees do perform these tasks, and regard them as the two most important tasks which they do perform. It seems, l o g i c a l l y enough, that the task of p r o t e c t i n g the i n t e r e s t s of one's party i s regarded as the most important task of a nominee, while that of f i n d i n g out what the other party i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g to s e t t l e f o r i s second i n importance. 193 Some i n t e r e s t i n g d i s p a r i t i e s of opinion are apparent i n the data. There i s a small suggestion that r e l a t i v e l y suc-c e s s f u l accomplishment of the p r o t e c t i o n of the i n t e r e s t s of one's party i s of somewhat greater importance to employers than i t i s , to unions, probably because an agreement that i s too much i n favour of the union i s regarded as being capable of d r i v i n g an employer out of business, whereas unions are not viewed as being faced with so d r a s t i c a sanction should an agreement be concluded that tends markedly to favour the employer. Further, union nominees f e e l , f a r more strongly than do employer nominees, that the task of attempting to f i n d out what the other party i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g to s e t t l e f o r i s the most important job of the nominee. I t seems reasonable to suppose that t h i s cleavage i s connected with the rather frequent union a l l e g a t i o n s that employers are u n w i l l i n g to place t h e i r r e a l economic p o s i t i o n before the Board, and therefore unions consider the obtaining of information as to what the other party i s r e a l l y w i l l i n g to s e t t l e f o r more important than do employers. It was conjectured that a nominee's performance would be evaluated by the party he represents i n terms of the s k i l l with which he manages to perform the two functions r e f e r r e d to i n the hypothesis j u s t discussed, and that t h i s w i l l constitute a pressure toward a nominee's behaving i n t h i s manner. The data i n d i c a t e that t h i s i s the case, although many respondents suggest that p a r t i e s expect t h e i r 194-nominee to behave i n t h i s way without i t being necessary f o r them to bring pressure to bear upon him to\"do so, because they tend to se l e c t a nominee whom they f e e l w i l l agree with t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n the f i r s t place. A divergence of opinion which i s d i s c e r n i b l e i n the data may mean that employer nominees are subjected, by t h e i r p a r t i e s , to more pressure to perform these tasks than are union nominees. This cleavage would seem to be connected with that noted pr e v i o u s l y which suggested that the task of g e t t i n g the best possible settlement f o r one's party seems to be regarded more intens e l y by employers as an important part of the nominee's job, probably because of the severe handicap which a too unfavourable agreement i s perceived as being capable of imposing upon an employer. It was postulated that i n the event that the two nominees are u n w i l l i n g to agree, the l e g a l requirement that the d e c i s i o n of the Board be a majority d e c i s i o n places l i m i t a t i o n s upon the a b i l i t y of the chairman to put pressure upon the two nominees to agree. The data indicate that, when disputing p a r t i e s consider i t e s s e n t i a l that t h e i r bargaining p o s i t i o n be maintained with a l o t of bargaining room, the usual desire of nominees to achieve unanimous or majority awards, and hence to compromise, becomes secondary to t h i s requirement, and nominees hold adamantly po s i t i o n s that are f a r apart. This s i t u a t i o n as a rule renders\"an accommodative chairman r e l a t i v e l y helpless to bring about agreement between them, and he w i l l simply be forced to sign a report which markedly favours one side or the other, and hence w i l l be quite u n l i k e l y to s e t t l e the dispute. The hypothesis which has just been discussed was concerned, i t should be obvious, with a hypothesized i n e f f i c i e n c y i n the c o n c i l i a t i o n mechanism. As the hypo-th e s i s has been confirmed, i t i s therefore recommended that, where the chairman has been unable to get the two nominees to reach agreement, and where he has, as w e l l , been unable to persuade one of them to j o i n him i n a report which he f e e l s does not markedly favour one of the p a r t i e s , that he be permitted to submit h i s own report as the report of the Board, which, i t seems l i k e l y , has a much better chance of being accepted by both of the p a r t i e s than a majority report, under the circumstances, could have. I t has already been pointed out (see Chapter I I , footnote 1 3 ) ? that i t i s apparently possible (although the Labour Relations Act states s p e c i f i c a l l y that, where unanimity i s not achieved, the d e c i s i o n of a majority of the members of a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board s h a l l be the d e c i s i o n of the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board) that, should no two members of the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board be able to agree on a report, each may submit a separate report. I t i s apparently also true, however, that the M i n i s t e r of Labour f o r the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia strongly . disapproves of t h i s procedure on the grounds that, as neither of the nominees has f e l t himself able to agree to the report of the chairman, i t w i l l almost i n v a r i a b l y be reje c t e d by both p a r t i e s . According to several experienced c o n c i l i a t o r s with whom the author discussed the matter, the submission of. such a report apparently u s u a l l y r e s u l t s i n the r e f u s a l of the Minister to accept the report, and an order to reconvene the Board i n order that a unanimous or majority report be achieved. Apparently these considerations render such reports by chairmen extremely rare i f not v i r t u a l l y non-existent. It i s suggested, however, that, f i r s t l y , i f no two members of the Board f e e l they can agree on a report, the independent report of the chairman has a much better chance than does any majority report of being accepted by both the p a r t i e s , and that, secondly, i f two adamant nominees w i l l not agree with one another, and neither w i l l agree to a r e l a t i v e l y intermediate p o s i t i o n proposed by the chairman, the knowledge that i t i s regarded as legitimate f o r the chairman to submit an independent report which, i t would seem, has a good chance of s e t t l i n g the dispute, would put pressure upon the nominees to agree to such a report, and bring to an end the s i t u a t i o n i n which the chairman has l i t t l e recourse but to sign a report markedly favouring one of the p a r t i e s , and which obviously, therefore, has no chance of s e t t l i n g the dispute. 197 One other point of i n t e r e s t i n connection with the above hypothesis i s that a p a r t i c u l a r cleavage of opinion manifested i n the data suggests once again that employer nominees are somewhat more c l o s e l y t i e d to the wishes of t h e i r p a r t i e s than are union nominees. It was surmised that, should the chairman view h i s r o l e as that of c o n c i l i a t o r by normative means, he w i l l , where the s i t u a t i o n already described i n the preceding-hypothesis a r i s e s (that i s , where the nominees w i l l not agree with each other, and neither w i l l agree to a report which the chairman f e e l s does not markedly favour e i t h e r ) , be capable of exerting even l e s s pressure toward agreement than the accommodatively c o n c i l i a t o r y chairman, f o r he w i l l simply be forced, f o r reasons already outlined i n Chapter I I , to sign with whichever party happens to be c l o s e r , i n h i s view, to the p o s i t i o n he f e e l s the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , or a just s e t t l e m e n t — o r whatever normative c r i t e r i o n he i s u s i n g — r e q u i r e s . The data c l e a r l y indicate that t h i s i s the case, which constitutes f u r t h e r evidence i n support of the recommendation made i n connection with the preceding hypothesis. It was suggested that c o l l e c t i v e agreement patterns w i l l be established f o r various trades and i n d u s t r i e s by C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, and- that, therefore, when a c o l l e c t i v e agreement dispute a r i s e s i n these trades 198 or i n d u s t r i e s , or i n trades or i n d u s t r i e s regarded as comparable, the report of the Board attempting to c o n c i l i a t e t h i s dispute w i l l be influenced by the established pattern i n the d i r e c t i o n of s i m i l a r i t y to the pattern. I t i s evident from the data that c o l l e c t i v e agreement patterns are e s t a b l i s h e d as described, and that they rather frequently influence the decisions of C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards i n the way predicted because decisions that tend to follow established patterns have a good chance of being accepted by both p a r t i e s . It was conjectured that there i s a great l i k e l i h o o d that a unanimous report w i l l be accepted by both p a r t i e s than w i l l a majority report, which i s l i k e l y to be rejected by the party whose nominee submitted a minority report. This hypothesis hence serves as the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r any recommendations which would attempt to eliminate, on the grounds that they are i n e f f i c i e n t i n that they work against the avowed purpose of the Board, f a c t o r s which tend to work against the achievement of a unanimous report. The data demonstrate c l e a r l y that the hypothesis i s c o r r e c t . The f a c t that f a r more employer than union nominees indicate that a majority report would us u a l l y be r e j e c t e d by the minority party probably means that employers are much more l i k e l y to r e j e c t a majority report signed by the union nominee than are unions l i k e l y to r e j e c t a majority report signed by the employer nominee. This suggests that employers regard themselves as being more vulnerable, economically, to unfavourable reports, and t i e s i n with previous evidence of a s i m i l a r s o r t . The recurrence of s i m i l a r evidence on t h i s point renders reasonable the conclusion that employers view themselves as more vulnerable to unfavourable reports than are unions, and that f o r t h i s reason they bind, more c l o s e l y than do unions, the actions of t h e i r nominees to t h e i r own wishes, as well as show a greater reluctance than do unions to accept a majority report signed by the nominee of t h e i r adversary. B. Internal Factors It was held that two d i s t i n c t conceptions of the role- of C o n c i l i a t i o n Board chairman e x i s t — t h e normative r o l e and the accommodative r o l e . This proves to be the case, with accommodative c o n c i l i a t i o n perceived as the commoner. Comments suggest, however, that often, i n an e f f o r t to achieve agreement, a chairman w i l l employ both methods, i n sequence, i n connection with the same dispute. It seems most reasonable to suppose—although the evidence i s not e x t e n s i v e — t h a t a chairman would most frequently employ accommodative c o n c i l i a t i o n f i r s t , and, should i t f a i l , then normative c o n c i l i a t i o n . Again, i t seems most reasonable to suppose—although, again, the evidence i s s c a n t y — t h a t a chairman would most often derive h i s normative standard, and h i s judgement of which party i s more i n the r i g h t , and which more i n the wrong, from the evidence presented to the Board by the p a r t i e s . Comments i n d i c a t e , however, that 2 0 0 some chairmen do come to the Board w i t h preconceived normative standards w i t h r e f e r e n c e to a d i s p u t e . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t more 'employer than union nominees f e e l t h a t the normative technique i s used r e l a t i v e l y f r e -q uently; i t i s not c l e a r why. The i d e a was advanced t h a t a chairman who p e r c e i v e s the normative r o l e as incumbent upon him w i l l tend t o m a i n t a i n , or perhaps widen, r a t h e r than reduce, or e l i m i n a t e , the d i s t a n c e s e p a r a t i n g the p o s i t i o n s of the two nominees, because such a chairman w i l l be p e r c e i v e d , by one of the nominees, as b i a s e d . The data c o n f i r m these i d e a s , and, as t h i s i s o b v i o u s l y an \" e f f i c i e n c y \" f a c t o r , i t i s t h e r e f o r e recommended t h a t chairmen who tend t o take a predominantly normative approach to c o n c i l i a t i o n not be appointed by the M i n i s t e r of L a b o u r — i t being assumed t h a t such chairmen, u n l e s s , of course, they are r e l a t i v e l y unknown, through having c h a i r e d r e l a t i v e l y few Boards, would never be m u t u a l l y acceptable t o the nominees—as t h e i r e f f o r t s w i l l almost c e r t a i n l y be i n v a i n . I t was f e l t t h a t the nominee i n whose favour the other nominee p e r c e i v e s the chairman as having abandoned h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y w i l l , i f he p e r c e i v e s h i s degree of dependence upon the d e s i r e s of h i s p a r t y as g r e a t , and i f they have gi v e n him r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e room i n which to compromise, have h i s degree of i n t r a n s i g e n c e i n c r e a s e d by 201 the support of the chairman; i f on the other hand he has been given a f a i r l y wide range of p o s i t i o n s within which to reach agreement, t h i s w i l l not be the case. The data give some support to these ideas, but not enough to warrant t h e i r acceptance. The f a c t that, under both of the sets of circumstances described above, more employer than union nominees f e e l that the r i g i d i t y with which the nominee holds h i s p o s i t i o n w i l l be increased, adds fu r t h e r to the mounting evidence that employer nominees are more c l o s e l y t i e d than are union nominees to the wishes of the party they represent. It was supposed that the normative r o l e of the chairman i s often incompatible with the task of getting the nominees to come to agreement. A consideration of the data leads rather f o r c i b l y to the conclusion that the normative method i s regarded as a r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t i v e method of attempting to achieve agreement between the nominees, and i t therefore seems reasonable to extrapolate that i t i s often incompatible with the task of g e t t i n g the nominees to reach agreement, a conclusion supported by the data which has already i n d i c a t e d that a normative chairman w i l l tend to maintain, or widen, rather than eliminate, the dispute. The recommendation that normative chairmen not be appointed i s thus strongly r e i n f o r c e d . Several comments of i n t e r e s t are worth a b r i e f r e c a p i t u l a t i o n . A few respondents suggest that both methods should be used, i n d i c a t i n g that, f o r a decided minority of respondents, the two methods are not incompatible, and, presumably, could be used in.sequence. The few who support the normative method do so because they f e e l that j u s t i c e — w h a t i s r i g h t and f a i r — i s to be preferred to \"agreement at a l l c o s t s V Several who support the accom-modative method,.however, observe that agreement, not j u s t i c e , i s the concern of the Board, and that, anyway, i f the two nominees are w i l l i n g to agree to a p a r t i c u l a r settlement, there i s no reason f o r the chairman to f e e l that the terms of the settlement are unjust. A number of others adjudge the p r i n c i p a l defect of the normative method as being that i t precludes agreement between the nominees, as one would perceive the chairman as biased. Those who support the accommodative technique indicate that i t i s f a r more l i k e l y to achieve agreement between the nominees because, under i t , the chairman i s viewed as an i m p a r t i a l man attempting to f i n d a median p o s i t i o n upon which both can v o l u n t a r i l y agree. These comments support, by and large, the author's hypotheses i n connection with the differences between the accommodative and normative techniques. It was proposed that, where a chairman i s using a b a s i c a l l y accommodative method, he w i l l almost always b r i n g to bear, i n addition, the pressure of normative c r i t e r i a , i n order to get the two to agree i n accommodative terms. I t was assumed that t h i s would be the case where a purely accommodative technique has already been used, unsuccessfully, by the chairman. The reverse p o s s i b i l i t y — t h a t of a 203 predominantly normative chairman a l s o employing accom-modative t e c h n i q u e s — w a s a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d . The d a t a seem to suggest t h a t the two techniques' are r e l a t i v e l y m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e , and the h y p o t h e s i s cannot be accepted. Two d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n are apparent, although t h e i r s i g n i -f i c a n c e i s not: employer nominees seem to f e e l , more s t r o n g l y than do union nominees, t h a t predominantly normative chairmen would f a i r l y f r e q u e n t l y a l s o employ accommodative methods; f u r t h e r , the f a r h i g h e r union non-response r a t e p r o b a b ly accounts f o r the a p p a r e n t l y stronger f e e l i n g s o f employer nominees t h a t accommodative chairmen would not be l i k e l y t o use normative techniques, but why t h i s d i s c repancy i n the non-response r a t e s of union and employer nominees occurred i s not at a l l c l e a r . The i d e a was put forward t h a t the s u s c e p t i b i l i t y which the chairman demonstrates toward the behaviour of one nominee w i l l f o r c e the other nominee to behave.toward the chairman i n the same manner. The data i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s w i l l be the case when the chairman i s s u s c e p t i b l e to a g g r e s s i v e , uncompromising b a r g a i n i n g behaviour as w e l l as when he i s f a v o u r a b l y i n f l u e n c e d by a compromising, concession-making b a r g a i n i n g a t t i t u d e . Two r a t h e r i n t e r -e s t i n g v a r i a t i o n s i n o p i n i o n i n the d a t a suggest t h a t employer nominees are more w i l l i n g to be tough and r e l a t i v e l y uncompromising, and are more s u c c e s s f u l when they a r e , than are union nominees, whereas union nominees, on the other hand, are more w i l l i n g to compromise, and are more suc-c e s s f u l when they do so. This could c e r t a i n l y he viewed as a source of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , on the part of union nominees, with the operation of Boards, i n that i t - suggests that chairmen tend to favour somewhat employer nominees and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . I t was suggested that the chairman, i n the event that unanimity i s not achieved, would tend to sign more frequently with the employer nominee. (The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s hypothesis w i l l not he r e c a p i t u l a t e d here; the reader i s r e f e r r e d to the discussion of Hypothesis 2(xix) i n Chapter II>) The most probable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data would seem to be that chairmen do sign somewhat more frequently with employer nominees, probably because they f e e l that the economic consequences of an award favouring the other side are f a r more serious f o r an employer than f o r a union, i n that such an award, were the employer forced to accept i t , could a c t u a l l y e i t h e r put an employer out of business, or else have somewhat les s d r a s t i c , but nonetheless s e r i o u s l y deleterious e f f e c t s . The evidence to support t h i s contention i s not, however, d e c i s i v e l y strong. Comments suggest that, when the two nominees cannot agree, and are intending to return to t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n s , a chairman w i l l often at t h i s point o f f e r a p o s i t i o n which he f e e l s to be a f a i r one, and i n v i t e one of the nominees to j o i n him; 205 some respondents suggested t h a t t h i s method was o f t e n s u c c e s s f u l i n a c h i e v i n g a r e l a t i v e l y moderate m a j o r i t y r e p o r t because o f t e n one of the nominees would be su f -f i c i e n t l y tempted by the prospect of a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t t o s h i f t from h i s extreme p o s i t i o n to the more intermediate one proposed by the chairman. Two i n t e r e s t i n g d i s p a r i t i e s of o p i n i o n appear i n the data. The f i r s t suggests t h a t employer nominees are more anxious t o p r o t e c t the b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s of t h e i r p a r t i e s , a f i n d i n g which t i e s i n w i t h p r e v i o u s evidence of the g r e a t e r dependence of employer nominees on the wishes of t h e i r p a r t i e s ; the second, t h a t chairmen do more o f t e n s i g n w i t h employer nominees, but t h a t employer nominees are r e l u c t a n t to admit t h i s . I t was c o n j e c t u r e d t h a t (as the nominees w i l l be s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c and/or p a r t y personnel s c r u t i n y and o p i n i o n of the nominees' p o s i t i o n s throughout the c o n c i l i -a t i o n proceedings) the presence of p o s i t i o n s suggested by the chairman w i l l be p e r c e i v e d by the nominees as p r o v i d i n g avenues of r e t r e a t t o p o s i t i o n s c l o s e r to agreement f o r which n e i t h e r nominee w i l l appear t o bear a predominance of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I t was f e l t t h a t t h i s would tend to reduce the l i k e l i h o o d of the p a r t i e s c h a r g i n g t h e i r nominees w i t h f a i l u r e t o c a r r y out the t a s k of p r o t e c t i n g the p a r t y ' s i n t e r e s t s . The i n f o r m a t i o n gleaned from the data i s summarized b r i e f l y below. P r e t t y w e l l a l l nominees are s e n s i t i v e to the opini o n s which t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s have about what t h e y do o n t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d , h u t r e l a t i v e l y few c a r e what t h e p u b l i c t h i n k s . N o m i n e e s r a t h e r commonly u s e new b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e c h a i r m a n as a way o f c o m i n g c l o s e r t o agreement w i t h o u t \" l o s i n g f a c e \" b e f o r e t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e , a n d t h e y f a i r l y commonly a t t e m p t t o j u s t i f y t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n t o t h e i r p a r t y o f a compromise on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t was made b y t h e c h a i r m a n , and n o t t h e nominee h i m s e l f , a l t h o u g h comments i n d i c a t e t h a t s u c h a s u g g e s t i o n w o u l d more u s u a l l y be j u s t i f i e d on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t w o u l d g i v e a b a r g a i n i n g a d v a n t a g e , o r r e s u l t i n a s e t t l e m e n t . T h r e e d i v e r g e n c e s o f o p i n i o n , a n d t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s , m e r i t b r i e f r e c a p i t u l a t i o n . F i r s t , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s a r e somewhat l e s s s e n s i t i v e t o p u b l i c o p i n i o n o f what t h e y do o n B o a r d s t h a n a r e u n i o n n o m i n e e s ( p e r h a p s b e c a u s e a n t i - u n i o n p u b l i c i t y a n d f e e l i n g seem commoner i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t h a n a n t i - e m p l o y e r p u b l i c i t y ) ; i t i s f e l t t h a t t h i s does n o t c o n t r a d i c t t h e p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g t h a t e m p l o y e r s a r e more s e n s i t i v e t o a l o s s o f p u b l i c s y m p a t h y , t h r o u g h t h e i s s u a n c e o f a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t , t h a n a r e u n i o n s , i n t h a t i t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e t h a t e m p l o y e r s s i m p l y f e e l t h a t , w h i l e a m i n o r i t y r e p o r t may be r a t h e r l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n a l o s s o f p u b l i c s y m p a t h y , t h e b e h a v i o u r o f t h e i r nominee o n t h e B o a r d w i l l n o t . S e c o n d , e m p l o y e r n o m i n e e s f e e l , more o f t e n t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s , t h a t t h e y u s e new b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e c h a i r m a n as a way o f c o m i n g c l o s e r t o agreement w i t h o u t \" l o s i n g f a c e \" b e f o r e t h e o t h e r n o m i n e e — w h i c h c o u l d mean t h a t c h a i r m e n are somewhat more s y m p a t h e t i c t o emp l o y e r s t h a n t h e y a r e t o u n i o n s i n t h a t t h e y s u g g e s t more b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s w h i c h employer nominees are w i l l i n g t o u s e ; t h i s w o u l d seem l o g i c a l , i f we assume t h a t c h a i r m e n v i e w a p a r t i c u l a r l y u n f a v o u r a b l e award as b e i n g more e c o n o m i c a l l y s e r i o u s f o r an em p l o y e r , and a l s o t i e s i n w i t h a p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g t h a t , where agreement cannot be r e a c h e d , c h a i r m e n more f r e q u e n t l y s i g n w i t h e mployer nominees. T h i r d , employer nominees f i n d t he t a c t i c o f j u s t i f y i n g s u g g e s t i o n s o f compromise t o t h e i r p a r t y by i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s e a re t h e c h a i r m a n ' s s u g g e s t i o n s more e f f e c t i v e , o r d e s i r a b l e , and use i t more o f t e n , t h a n do u n i o n n o m i n e e s — w h i c h w o u l d , i t seems, p r o v i d e f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e g r e a t e r dependence o f em p l o y e r nominees on th e w i s h e s o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . I t w i l l be remembered t h a t , i n C h a p t e r I I I , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l i n g n e s s o f employer nominees t o j u s t i f y sug-g e s t i o n s t o t h e i r p a r t i e s f o r a change o f p o s i t i o n on t h e grounds t h a t t h e y were made by t h e c h a i r m a n , as w e l l as a c c u m u l a t i n g e v i d e n c e o f t h e g r e a t e r dependence o f employer nominees upon t h e w i s h e s o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s , were a t t r i -b u t e d , a t f i r s t , t o a p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e g r e a t e r economic s e r i o u s n e s s , f o r an em p l o y e r , o f an u n f a v o u r a b l e C o n c i l i a t i o n B o a r d award, b u t t h a t , e v e n t u a l l y , i t was p r o p o s e d t h a t , w h i l e t h i s economic f a c t o r was s t i l l r e g a r d e d as i n f l u e n t i a l , a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e m e n t i o n e d s t r o n g l y 208 suggested t h a t another, and r a t h e r more i n f l u e n t i a l c a u s a l f a c t o r , was o p e r a t i n g i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h i t . T his f a c t o r i s b r i e f l y r e c a p i t u l a t e d below. I t seems reasonable t o propose, on the b a s i s of the evidence mentioned, t h a t employer nominees tend to see themselves as be i n g i n v o l v e d i n a c o n t r a c t u a l , or secondary, r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s , f o r whom they are t h e r e f o r e agents, whereas union nominees appear to view themselves as belo n g i n g to the same group as t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s , and t h e r e f o r e as having a more \"primary\" s o r t of r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the p a r t i e s they r e p r e s e n t — t h e y are members of the group r a t h e r than agents f o r i t . I t i s the author's view t h a t , because union nominees can view themselves as \"members of the group,\" they can f e e l more secure i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the p a r t i e s they represent because they are t h e r e f o r e l e s s l i k e l y t o be „ suspected, or accused, of not p r o p e r l y p r o t e c t i n g the i n t e r e s t s of the p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y they represent should they decide t o i n i t i a t e suggestions or a c t i o n on t h e i r own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Employer nominees, on the other hand (because they can more o f t e n regard themselves e i t h e r as merely h i r e d agents of the p a r t y they r e p r e s e n t , or as, i n the case of e x e c u t i v e s , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s engaged i n a some-what more impersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the p a r t y they represented than would be l i k e l y t o be p o s s i b l e f o r union nominees), a re, i n the author's view, s u b j e c t e d to a much stron g e r pressure not to take the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n i t i a t i n g suggestions, or action, themselves, because to do so would be much more l i k e l y to render them vulnerable to accusations of failure to protect the party interest. It was postulated that some nominees w i l l show varying degrees of independence of the parties which they represent, and that this independence, when i t occurs, w i l l almost always be in the direction of being more conciliatory than their parties had indicated to them that they desired them to be. These ideas seem, by and large, to be con-firmed. A number of comments suggest that, at least on occasion, nominees w i l l begin bargaining by sticking pretty well exactly to the positions provided by their parties, and w i l l later, in an effort to achieve agreement, become somewhat more flexible on their own i n i t i a t i v e . A number of cleavages appear that are worthy of mention. F i r s t , the data suggest that employer nominees are more closely tied to the wishes of their party than are union nominees— an observation which ties in with a large accumulation of evidence to the same effect. Second, union nominees show, for a particular question, a non-response rate twice as large as that of employer nominees, a finding which, on the basis of a reasoning process which need not be repeated here, was interpreted as evidence, f i r s t l y , i n support of the hypothesis recapitulated above, and, secondly, i n support of the proposition, already advanced, that union nominees enjoy a rela t i v e l y \"primary\", and employer nominees a r e l a t i v e l y \"secondary\", r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . Third, the data again suggest that employer nominees are more c l o s e l y t i e d to the wishes of t h e i r p a r t i e s than are union nominees. A fourth point of i n t e r e s t i n connection with the data r e l a t i n g to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r hypothesis i s that chairmen perceive nominees as being more dependent upon the wishes of t h e i r p a r t i e s than the nominees perceive themselves. A f i f t h and f i n a l cleavage of i n t e r e s t i s that nominees are much more w i l l i n g to admit to a difference with t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s over an expediential matter—what would get a settlement of the d i s p u t e — t h a n over a normative matter—what should be the basis of a settlement; i t seems obvious that t h i s i s because the \"condemnation\" involved i n the admission of such a difference i s , of course, much stronger i n the l a t t e r case. It was surmised that, should a nominee indicate such c o n c i l i a t o r y independence to the chairman, the chairman w i l l attempt to get the other nominee to compromise i n the same way; and that, should a nominee indicate such c o n c i l i -atory independence to the other nominee, the other nominee w i l l tend to show the same kind of c o n c i l i a t o r y independence himself. The f i r s t section of t h i s hypothesis i s confirmed by the data, but the second—while i t does receive a good deal of support—does not receive enough to indicate that what i s hypothesized generally p r e v a i l s . Some s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of opinion i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r data should be mentioned. Employer nominees seem to f e e l , more strongly than do union nominees, that chairmen, when they perceive that one nominee i s more w i l l i n g to compromise than h i s party appears to he, w i l l be l i k e l y to t r y to persuade the other nominee to compromise i n the same way; t h i s could mean that employer nominees have a higher opinion of chairmen—an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which t i e s i n with previous i n d i c a t i o n s that chairmen are somewhat more sympathetic to employers and employer nominees. Further, the data show that employer nominees would be somewhat l e s s l i k e l y than union nominees to attempt, i f the other nominee indicates that he i s more w i l l i n g to compromise than h i s party appears to be, to compromise i n the same w a y — s t i l l further evidence that employer nominees are more c l o s e l y t i e d to the wishes of t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . C. Other-role Factors It was proposed that i m p a r t i a l and objective behaviour on the part of the chairman and with reference to the nominees would be found most frequently i n persons r e c r u i t e d from the academic profession. This, indeed, proved to be the case. In the l i g h t of the extent to which accommodative, or i m p a r t i a l , c o n c i l i a t i o n i s preferred by the nominees, i t would seem e f f i c i e n t , then, to use chairmen from the academic profession as often as p o s s i b l e . It was held that r e t i r e d persons who serve on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards w i l l tend to have an . a n t i - i n f l a t i o n a r y bias that w i l l cause them to oppose any but r e l a t i v e l y small wage increases f o r unions. The data suggest that t h i s does occur to some extent, but by no means often enough to warrant the acceptance of the hypothesis. So f a r as v a r i a t i o n s i n opinion are concerned,, the question suggests that unions are discriminated against by r e t i r e d persons on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, and, of course, union nominees are rather more w i l l i n g to agree to t h i s than are employer nominees, who are scarcely w i l l i n g to agree to i t at a l l . I t would seem reasonable to regard t h i s as evidence, i n addition to that already noted, i n d i c a t i n g that union nominees l i k e C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards l e s s than do employer.nominees. The idea was advanced that, with reference to the p o s i t i o n of chairman, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of lawyers with the economic and p o l i t i c a l values of employers, i n the sense of pe r c e i v i n g the necessity to protect a mutual i n t e r e s t , w i l l cause the majority of lawyers who serve as chairmen to be reluctant to exercise c o n c i l i a t o r y pressure upon employers through the employer nominee. A consideration of the data indicates f a i r l y c l e a r l y that respondents, considered as a group, are of a rather mixed opinion: they neither f i r m l y accept nor f i r m l y r e j e c t the hypothesis, the reason being that unions tend to support the hypothesis, although not strongly, whereas employers tend to r e j e c t the hypothesis, although not strongly. The most probable conclusion would 2 1 3 seem to be, then, that the hypothesis i s true of some lawyer-chairmen. C e r t a i n l y i t i s c l e a r that employer nominees, i n general, think lawyers make good chairmen, whereas union nominees f e e l that t h i s i s true of only some lawyers, a conclusion which would support the idea that some lawyer-chairmen i n the past have probably been biased i n favour of employers, while i t does not seem l i k e l y that any have been biased i n favour of unions. I t i s therefore recommended that, when i t i s necessary f o r the government to appoint a chairman-, care should be exercised that, i f he i s to be a lawyer,, he should have a reputation f o r i m p a r t i a l i t y that i s acknowledged by both sides. A number of s i g n i f i c a n t d i s -p a r i t i e s i n opinion are worthy of discussion. Two questions which imply that lawyer-chairmen tend to discriminate against union nominees obtain a response which again suggests that union nominees are much more d i s s a t i s f i e d with Boards than are employer nominees. The high union non-response rate on one of these questions provides f u r t h e r support f o r t h i s suggestion: the data intimate that a number of union nominees probably do not f e e l that they are discriminated against by lawyer-chairmen, but that they do f e e l somewhat r e s e n t f u l and discriminated against as a r e s u l t of t h e i r experiences on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards i n general. Two further divergences of opinion i n the data strongly suggest that union nominees tend to d i s l i k e and d i s t r u s t lawyers as chairmen; comments indicate that they have two p r i n c i p a l reasons f o r t h i s : they f e e l t h a t the economic i n t e r e s t s of lawyers tend to l i e w i t h employers, and t h a t lawyers w i l l t h e r e f o r e he sympathetic t o employers, and they d i s l i k e a p e r c e i v e d tendency f o r lawyers t o adopt an approach t h a t concentrates on l e g a l t e c h n i c a l i t i e s and t h e r e f o r e i n h i b i t s f r e e b a r g a i n i n g . ( S e v e r a l comments excepted lawyer-chairmen i n the academic p r o f e s s i o n from such charges.) But there i s a f u r t h e r p o i n t of i n t e r e s t which seems i m p l i c i t i n these data: the f a c t t h a t union nominees o b v i o u s l y l i k e lawyer-chairmen much l e s s than do employer nominees, and, f u r t h e r , p e r c e i v e f a r more of them as s e r v i n g on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards than do employer nominees, would seem t o o f f e r f u r t h e r evidence t h a t union nominees l i k e C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards l e s s than do employer nominees. I t was f e l t t h a t lawyers who appear as nominees w i l l tend to reduce the l i k e l i h o o d of the two nominees re a c h i n g a p o s i t i o n of agreement (because i t i s f e l t t h a t lawyers, c o n d i t i o n e d t o the combatative use of the courtroom technique of cross-examination, w i l l , as nominees, antagonize, through the use of i t , the other nominee, and, t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t , the chairman, and, f u r t h e r , t h a t , because they are c o n d i t i o n e d to l e g a l i s t i c t h i n k i n g and the r e l a t i v e l y i n d i s c r i m i n a t e use of every f a c t o r and t e c h n i c a l i t y , whether major or minor, by which they can support t h e i r p a r t y ' s case, lawyer-nominees w i l l tend to obfuscate the i s s u e s s i g n i f i c a n t to the settlement of the d i s p u t e ) . An examination of the data brings a number of things to l i g h t . I t i s c l e a r that lawyers often serve on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards as employer nominees; that many, but by no means a l l of these use the \"lawyer-approach\" r e f e r r e d to; that t h i s d e f i n i t e l y does antagonize the other nominee (presumably u s u a l l y the union nominee), and the chairman somewhat l e s s . There i s evidence that t h i s \"approach\" does, sometimes, sidetrack the Board onto i r r e l e v a n t or minor issues, but t h i s deleterious e f f e c t i s much l e s s common than that of antagonism on the part of the other nominee. I t does, also, seem c l e a r that those lawyer-nominees who use t h i s \"lawyer-approach\" have le s s chance of reaching or approaching agreement with the other nominee. Nominees from both sides agree that the hypothesis i s correct f o r lawyers who use the approach r e f e r r e d to; they disagree only on the frequency with which i t i s a c t u a l l y used, with union nominees perceiving i t as i n r e l a t i v e l y frequent use by lawyer-nominees (presumably by employer nominees who are lawyers) and employer nominees per c e i v i n g i t as i n r e l a t i v e l y infrequent use by lawyer-nominees (presumably by t h e i r own lawyer-nominees). This i s , of course, understandable, as unions apparently almost never employ lawyer-nominees, whereas employers rather frequently do. Those cleavages of opinion which arose would seem to be a function of the f a c t that lawyers serve almost always as employer nominees, but they also constitute a further piece of evidence of the greater d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of 216 •union nominees with C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards. The foregoing findings would seem to warrant the recommendation that employers use lawyers as nominees as l i t t l e as poss i b l e , and that they advise those lawyers whom they do use against the employment of the \"lawyer-approach\" r e f e r r e d to above. It was supposed that the greater the amount of previous experience that a chairman has had ch a i r i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, the greater w i l l be h i s chances of achieving agreement between the two nominees. The data indicate that t h i s i s u s u a l l y the case. More employer than union nominees have a higher opinion of the value of experience f o r a chairman's c o n c i l i a t o r y a b i l i t y . This may t i e i n with previous evidence suggesting that chairmen more often sign with employer nominees when agreement cannot be reached; i f t h i s i s so, i t may tend to give union nominees l e s s f a i t h than employer nominees i n the chairmen's i m p a r t i a l i t y . Several persons with whom the author discussed C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards (as well as data previously c i t e d i n footnote 26) indicated that, most of the time, the two nominees are unable to agree on a mutually-acceptable chairman, with the r e s u l t that the chairman must be appointed by the M i n i s t e r of Labour—who, i t was suggested, has a tendency, under the S o c i a l Credit government (a conservative, \"free-enterprise\" Canadian party) , to appoint somewhat pro-employer, anti-labour chairmen. I f t h i s a l l e g a t i o n has any foundation i n f a c t , i t could, account f o r the rather 2 1 7 modest enthusiasm shown f o r experienced chairmen by union nominees; at any r a t e , t h i s cleavage seems to add f u r t h e r to the mounting evidence of g r e a t e r union d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards. I t was proposed t h a t the g r e a t e r the amount of p r e v i o u s experience t h a t a nominee has had as a nominee on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, the g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s chances of r e a c h i n g agreement w i t h the other nominee. The data warrant the acceptance of t h i s i d e a . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t the s i z e of the m a j o r i t y s u p p o r t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s , i n comparison to t h a t obtained w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the p r e v i o u s h y p o t h e s i s , i s s t r i k i n g l y reduced, probably because, as a r e s u l t of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p a r t i s a n s h i p , a nominee's competence w i l l , presumably., p r o t e c t h i s p a r t y ' s i n t e r e s t at the expense o f , to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , the achievement of agreement w i t h the other nominee. The i d e a was put forward t h a t the g r e a t e r the amount of previous experience that a nominee has had as a nominee on C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, the g r e a t e r h i s chances e i t h e r of g e t t i n g the chairman to s i g n w i t h him i n a m a j o r i t y r e p o r t , or of g e t t i n g a unanimous r e p o r t t h a t i s t o h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . The evidence warrants the acceptance of these ideas as c o r r e c t . I t was suggested t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , the more f a m i l i a r the chairman i s w i t h the trade or i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n the d i s p u t e , the g r e a t e r w i l l he h i s a b i l i t y to get the two nominees to reach agreement. The data c o n f i r m t h i s i d e a . An i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e i n o p i n i o n i s ev i d e n t : employer nominees are somewhat more i n disagreement w i t h the a n t i -t h e s i s of the h y p o t h e s i s — t h e i d e a t h a t i f a chairman knows nothi n g about the trade or i n d u s t r y i n which the d i s p u t e has occurred, then he w i l l be b e t t e r able to get the two nominees to a g r e e — t h a n are union nominees. T h i s , i t seems reasonable to s p e c u l a t e , i s probably because employer nominees are r a t h e r more apprehensive about what a chairman who knows no t h i n g about the i n d u s t r y c o u l d do to t h e i r p a r t i e s : i f the union nominee managed to persuade the chairman to s i g n a r e p o r t t h a t was c o n s i d e r a b l y out of l i n e (and, presumably, i f the chairman knows no t h i n g about the i n d u s t r y , h i s chances of doing so are much g r e a t e r ) , t h i s would probably sub-s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t an employer x^ould e v e n t u a l l y have to accept a r e p o r t which would, employer nominees f e e l , have d r a s t i c consequences f o r him ec o n o m i c a l l y . These f i n d i n g s would j u s t i f y a recommendation t h a t , where p o s s i b l e , a chairman should be chosen or appointed who i s f a m i l i a r w i t h the trade or i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n the d i s p u t e . I t was c o n j e c t u r e d t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , the more f a m i l i a r a nominee i s w i t h the trade or i n d u s t r y i n v o l v e d i n the d i s p u t e , the g r e a t e r w i l l be h i s a b i l i t y to p r o t e c t the i n t e r e s t s and welfa r e of h i s p a r t y by b r i n g i n g about unanimous or m a j o r i t y r e p o r t s which tend to support the 219 p o s i t i o n of h i s party. Respondents indicate that the r e l a t i o n s h i p described i n the hypothesis would u s u a l l y hold true. I t was postulated that i f the chairman and one of the nominees belong to the same occupational and s o c i a l c l a s s , they w i l l be more l i k e l y to reach agreement more quickly than i f they belonged to d i f f e r e n t occupational and s o c i a l classes (because, i t was assumed, they w i l l tend to have s i m i l a r economic and p o l i t i c a l sympathies). I t appears that the type of Board described by the hypothesis—but one i n which a pr o f e s s i o n a l man or businessman, rather than a man with a labour background, i s chairman—does occur with very great frequency, and that i t appears, with some frequency, to have the e f f e c t predicted by the hypothesis—but only, apparently, to the advantage of employers. Two differences i n the perceptions of union and employer nominees constitute f u r t h e r evidence that union nominees are more d i s s a t i s f i e d with C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards than are employer nominees. The acceptance of the above hypothesis would seem to o f f e r support to a recommendation, put forward by respondents and recorded at the end of Chapter I I I , that a panel of permanent chairmen, acceptable to both sides, be formed. It was surmised that i f the chairman and one of the nominees belong to the same occupational and s o c i a l c l a s s , they w i l l , i f unanimity i s not achieved, tend to be more l i k e l y to i s s u e the m a j o r i t y r e p o r t than they would i f they belonged to d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l c l a s s e s . The data i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s i s u s u a l l y the case, but, as we alr e a d y know t h a t Boards w i t h a labour chairman almost never occur, the s i t u a t i o n d e s c r i b e d i n the hypothesis i s , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , of b e n e n f i t to employers on l y . Again, v a r i a t i o n s i n o p i n i o n between the two groups of nominees show t h a t union nominees f e e l t h a t they and t h e i r p a r t i e s are f r e q u e n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t as a r e s u l t of the hypothesized s i t u a t i o n , which p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r evidence of gre a t e r union d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards, and, more p a r t i -c u l a r l y , chairmen. This i s o b v i o u s l y evidence which supports f u r t h e r the recommendation, made above, of a panel of per -manent chairmen acceptable to both p a r t i e s . Some F i n a l Observations A panoramic c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the m a t e r i a l presented i n t h i s f i n a l chapter prompts a number of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s . I t i s apparent t h a t accommodative and normative c o n c i l i a t i o n are r e l a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t i n t h a t they are not o f t e n used i n sequence, and t h a t , of the two, accommodative c o n c i l i a t i o n i s overwhelmingly p r e f e r r e d under a l l circumstances. A second general o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s not a f a c t o r which e x e r c i s e s any important i n f l u e n c e upon the op e r a t i o n of C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards. T h i r d , employer nominees seem more c l o s e l y t i e d to the wishes of t h e i r p a r t i e s as a 221 r e s u l t of a combination of two f a c t o r s : t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of employers as having a g r e a t e r economic v u l n e r a b i l i t y to a markedly unfavourable r e p o r t , and the e f f e c t of the \"secondary\" type of r e l a t i o n s h i p which employers enjoy w i t h t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s . F o u r t h , an accumulation of evidence makes i t apparent t h a t chairmen are somewhat more f a v o u r a b l y i n c l i n e d toward employer nominees as a r e s u l t of a combination of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s : f i r s t l y , a sympathy based upon s o c i a l -c l a s s and o c c u p a t i o n a l s i m i l a r i t i e s , w i t h an attendant i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of economic and p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s ; secondly, a b e l i e f i n the gr e a t e r economic s e r i o u s n e s s , f o r an employer, of a p a r t i c u l a r l y unfavourable award, and, t h i r d l y , the tendency, a l l e g e d by union nominees, of the S o c i a l C r e d i t government to appoint chairmen who tend to.be more f a v o u r a b l y i n c l i n e d toward employers. I n the author's o p i n i o n , these f a c t o r s ( t h a t i s , those mentioned i n the f o u r t h g e n e r a l i -z a t i o n ) are the p r i n c i p a l causes of a f i f t h general phenomenon: a g e n e r a l i z e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , on the p a r t of union nominees (and, presumably, unions) w i t h the way i n which the Boards operate. In response to the i n f o r m a t i o n brought t o l i g h t by the data gathered i n the present study, a number of recom-mendations have been made which, i t i s hoped, would a l t e r the present c o n c i l i a t i o n machinery i n such a way as t o render i t more s a t i s f a c t o r y t o those whom i t serves; these recom-mendations are r e c a p i t u l a t e d below. 222 1. I t i s recommended t h a t , where the chairman has been unable to get the two nominees to reach agreement, and where he has, as w e l l , been unable t o persuade one of them to j o i n him i n a r e p o r t which he f e e l s does not markedly favour one of the p a r t i e s , t h a t he be p e r m i t t e d to submit h i s own r e p o r t as the r e p o r t of the Board. 2. I t i s recommended t h a t q u a l i f i e d chairmen be r e c r u i t e d from the academic p r o f e s s i o n as o f t e n as p o s s i b l e . 3. I t i s recommended t h a t , when i t i s necessary f o r the government to appoint a chairman, care should be e x e r c i s e d t h a t , i f he i s to be a lawyer, he should have a r e p u t a t i o n f o r i m p a r t i a l i t y t h a t i s acknowledged by both s i d e s . 4. I t i s recommended t h a t a panel of permanent chairmen, acceptable to both labour and management, be formed, and t h a t these chairmen be assigned t o Boards i n s t r i c t r o t a t i o n , as di s p u t e s a r i s e . 5. I t i s recommended t h a t chairmen who tend t o take a predominantly normative approach t o c o n c i l i a t i o n ( t h a t i s , r o u g h ly, chairmen who are regarded by one or both sides as biased) not be appointed by the Minister of Labour. 6. I t i s recommended that employers use lawyers as nominees as l i t t l e as p o s s i b l e , and that they advise those lawyers whom they do use against the employment of the \"lawyer-approach\" previously described. 7- It i s recommended that, where possible, a chairman be chosen or appointed who i s f a m i l i a r with the trade or industry involved i n the dispute. These recommendations are regarded as being capable of e x e r c i s i n g a d i r e c t l y remedial e f f e c t upon the \" i n e f -f i c i e n c i e s \" i n the mechanism of the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board which caused several of the generalizations made at the beginning of the present section of t h i s chapter. The f i r s t s i x of the recommendations w i l l , i t i s f e l t , eliminate the present i n c l i n a t i o n of chairmen to be somewhat more favourably i n c l i n e d toward employer nominees and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s , and w i l l , as well, eliminate the general d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards of union nominees and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s of which t h i s i n c l i n a t i o n of chairmen i s f e l t to be the main cause. The f i f t h recommendation.will, i t i s assumed, serve to g r a t i f y the overwhelming preference of nominees f o r 224-accommodative chairmen, and w i l l thereby i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d of Boards succeeding i n a c h i e v i n g agreement between the d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . The seventh and l a s t recommendation w i l l a l s o , i t i s b e l i e v e d , serve t o i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d of agreement being achieved through the e f f o r t s of the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t , at the end of Chapter I I I , recommendations were d e s c r i b e d which, i t had been suggested by respondents, would improve the .operation of the c o n c i l i a t i o n machinery, and i t was s t a t e d t h a t , s o l e l y on the b a s i s of the amount of support given these recom-mendations by respondents, the implementation of none of them c o u l d be j u s t i f i e d , but t h a t they would be examined i n the l i g h t of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of a l l of the data presented, and t h e i r d e s i r a b i l i t y , or l a c k of i t , judged a c c o r d i n g l y . The f i v e suggestions made w i l l now be examined, and judged, i n t u r n . (a) A panel of permanent chairmen was suggested on the grounds t h a t the present method of s e l e c t i o n o f t e n l e f t one or both s i d e s d i s s a t i s f i e d ; t h i s s uggestion seems e n t i r e l y j u s t i f i e d by the d a t a , and has, of course, been put forward above as a recommendation. (b) I t was proposed t h a t , as the d i s p u t i n g 225 p a r t i e s tend, rather than bargaining on the Boards i n good f a i t h , to use them simply as a bargaining t o o l (some of the data d i d suggest that t h i s sometimes occurs), C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r s be given more power to e f f e c t a settlement, thus reducing the frequency with which Boards are required. As none of the data r e l a t e i n any way to C o n c i l i a t i o n O f f i c e r s , i t must be the task of further research to t e s t the d e s i r a b i l i t y of t h i s suggestion. (c) Another proposal f o r f o r c i n g p a r t i e s to bargain i n good f a i t h was that a pool of permanent Board members be formed from which a l l Boards would be constituted. This i s , of course, an excellent suggestion so f a r as the p o s i t i o n of the chairman i s concerned, and has already been recommended, but, as, under t h i s plan, the labour and management nominees are to be chosen by labour and management, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to see why such a method of s e l e c t i n g nominees would bring about any s i g n i f i c a n t change i n the tendency of p a r t i e s to use the Board as a device f o r attempting to gain a bargaining advantage rather than as a means of reaching agreement. 226 Perhaps those who made t h i s suggestion f e l t t h a t i n t h i s way p a r t i e s would he more l i k e l y to have to' b a r g a i n i n good f a i t h because they would f i n d i t more d i f f i c u l t to get presumably more i m p a r t i a l nominees to do t h e i r b i d d i n g on the Boards. However, i t i s suggested t h a t , f i r s t l y , the nominees would be u n l i k e l y , under the new system, to-be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i m p a r t i a l than they were under the o l d , and t h a t , secondly, the data do not, anyway, j u s t i f y a recommendation f o r i m p a r t i a l nominees. (d) I t was h e l d t h a t some method should be i n c o r -porated i n t o the c o n c i l i a t i o n machinery f o r a s s u r i n g t h a t a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t i n e n t to the settlement of the d i s p u t e has been submitted to the Board i n the b r i e f s prepared by the d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s . T h i s , could i t be assured, would seem to be the best p o s s i b l e way f o r i n s u r i n g t h a t the p a r t i e s use the Board to b a r g a i n i n good f a i t h , f o r , i f the r e a l p o s i t i o n of each p a r t y i s presented f u l l y and w i t h complete accuracy, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to. see how the d i s p u t a n t s could do anything but b a r g a i n i n good f a i t h . An e i g h t h recommendation i s , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t 2 2 7 the l e g i s l a t i o n g o v e r n i n g C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards he a l t e r e d to r e q u i r e t h a t the b r i e f s p r e p a r e d by the d i s p u t i n g p a r t i e s be examined, and, i f n e c e s s a r y , be expanded or c o r r e c t e d by c o m p l e t e l y i m p a r t i a l persons competent, and empowered ( i n the sense of h a v i n g access t o a l l the n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n ) , to do so. (e) I t was suggested by a number of respondents t h a t compulsory a r b i t r a t i o n be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the p r e s e n t c o n c i l i a t i o n machinery, but i t i s f e l t t h a t the d a t a most d e f i n i t e l y do not support such a recommendation. So f a r as s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h are concerned, i t would seem p o t e n t i a l l y most rewarding (as w e l l as, perhaps, j u s t i f i e d by s c i e n t i f i c c a u t i o n ) t o conduct f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o the d e s i r a b i l i t y of i n s t i t u t i n g the e i g h t recommendations which have been made above. BIBLIOGRAPHY The A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o u r f o r , t h e y e a r s 1955-1959 i n c l u s i v e , V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r . L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s A c t , C h a p t e r 17, 1954, S t a t u t e s o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . The P r o v i n c e [ V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , C a n a d a ] f November 21, 1956; M a r c h 24, 1956; J a n u a r y 19, 1957; M a r c h 25, 1958; F e b r u a r y 10, 1959; J u l y 7, 1959, a n d M a r c h 31, I960. The S u n [ V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , C a n a d a ] , S e p t e m b e r .27, 1957; O c t o b e r 17, 1957; December 16, 1958; M a r c h 26, 1958; two a r t i c l e s i n t h e i s s u e o f J u n e 25, 1958; a n u n d a t e d c l i p p i n g , p r o b a b l y f r o m t h e summer o f 1958; F e b r u a r y 4, 1959; F e b r u a r y 10, 1959, a n d M a r c h 30, I960. Woods, H. D., \" C o n c e p t s i n L a b o u r R e l a t i o n s , \" P a t t e r n s o f I n d u s t r i a l D i s p u t e S e t t l e m e n t i n F i v e C a n a d i a n I n d u s t r i e s , e d . H. D. Woods, M o n t r e a l , Quebec, The I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s C e n t r e , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , p p . 1-21. 228 APPENDIX A THE TABLES TABLE IV ( Q u e s t i o n 3 1 ( a ) ) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i n e e s Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) More 58.3% 54.2% 57.1% 56.4% A b o u t The Same 16.7% 4.2% - 9-1% L e s s - 8.3% - 3.6% No E f f e c t A t A l l 16.7% 25.0% 14.3% .20.0% N o n - R e s p o n s e 8.3% 8.3% 28.6% 10.9% TABLE V ( Q u e s t i o n 3 1 ( b ) ) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) A l m o s t A l w a y s 8.3% 16.7% - 10.9%) ) 25.4% The M a j o r i t y ) Of The Time 12.5% 12.5% 28.6% 14.5% ) Sometimes 33-3% 20.8% 14.3% 2 5 . 4 % V e r y R a r e l y - 4.2% 14.3% 3-6%) ) 10.9% N e v e r 8.3% 4.2% 14.3% 7-3%) Non- R e s p o n s e 37-5% 41.7% 28.6% 38.2% TABLE V I ( Q u e s t i o n 3 2 ( a ) ) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) More 8.3% - 14.5% 5-4% A b o u t The Same 12 . 5 % - - 5.4% L e s s 41 . 7 % 58.3% 4 2 . 9 % 4 9.1% No E f f e c t A t A l l 33-3% 25.0% 2 8 . 6 % 29.1% N o n - R e s p o n s e 4.2% 16 . 7 % 14 . 3 % 10.' 7o TABLE V I I ( Q u e s t i o n 3 2 ( b ) ) A l m o s t A l w a y s The M a j o r i t y Of The Time Sometimes V e r y R a r e l y N e v e r N o n - R e s p o n s e U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n Nominees Nominees (N=7) • (N=24) (N=24) 16 . 7 % 29.2% 16 . 7 % 37.5% 20.8% 25.0% 20.8% 8.3% 25.0% 2 8 . 6 % 2 8 . 6 % 42 . 9 % T o t a l s (N=55) 9.1% ) 21.8% 25.4% ) 10.9% ) 32.7% ) 9.1% ) 36':^ % TABLE V I I I ( Q u e s t i o n 33) . U n i o n Nominees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) A g r e e 29.2% 50.0% 2 8 . 6 % 38.2% D i s a g r e e 20.8% 12.5% 14 . 3 % 16 . 4 % N o t P r e s s u r e 4-5.8% 33.3% 28.6% 38.2% N o n - R e s p o n s e 4-. 2% 4-. 2% TABLE IX 28 . 6 % 7.3% ( Q u e s t i o n 3 4 ( a ) ) U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N =55) A g r e e - 12.5% - 5.4% D i s a g r e e Hi 33.3% 37.5% 2 8 . 6 % 34.5% N o t P r e s s u r e 58.3% 50.0% 42 . 9 % 52.7% N o n - R e s p o n s e 8.3% — 2 8 . 6 % 7.3% TABLE X ( Q u e s t i o n 3 5 ) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees Nominees ( N = 7 ) ( N = 5 5 ) (N=24) (N=24) To A G r e a t E x t e n t 8 . 3 % 4.2% - 5.4%) ) 1 2 . 7 % To Q u i t e A n ) E x t e n t 8 . 3 % 8 . 3 % - 7 - 3 % ) To Some E x t e n t 1 6 . 7 % 1 6 . 7 % 2 8 . 6 % 1 8 . 2 % To A S m a l l 2 0 . 8 % 3 3 - 3 % 4 2 . 9 % 2 9 . 1 % ) E x t e n t ) 5 4 . 5 % To No ) E x t e n t 2 9 . 2 % 2 5 . 0 % 1 4 . 3 % 2 5 . 4 % ) N o n - R e s p o n s e 1 6 . 7 % 1 2 . 5 % 1 4 . 3 % 1 4 . 5 % TABLE X I ( Q u e s t i o n 37) To A G r e a t E x t e n t To Q u i t e An E x t e n t To Some E x t e n t To A S m a l l E x t e n t To No E x t e n t N o n - R e s p o n s e U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n N o minees Nominees (N=7) (N=24) (N=24) 29-2% 16 . 7 % 37.5% 16 . 7 % 16 . 7 % 25.0% 4-5.8% 12.5% 4-2.9% 2 8 . 6 % 2 8 . 6 % T o t a l s (N=55) 0.0% 20.( 2 3 . 6 % ) ) 6 3 . 6 % ) 4-0.0% ) 16.4-% TABLE X I I ( Q u e s t i o n 4-9) A l m o s t A l w a y s I n The M a j o r i t y o f C a s e s Sometimes F a i r l y R a r e l y N e v e r N o n-Response U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) 25.0% 33.3% 2 0 . 8 % 8 . 3 % 4.2% 8 . 3 % E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) 25.0% 4 5 . 8 % 16 . 7 % 12.5% C h a i r m e n (N=7) 14 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 4 2 . 9 % T o t a l s (N=55) 2 3 . 6 % ) ) 6 0 . 0 % ) 3 6 . 4 % ) 16.4% 5.4%) ) 9 .0% 3.6%) 14 . 5 % TABLE X I I I ( Q u e s t i o n 50) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) A l m o s t A l w a y s 8.3% 4 . 2 % - 5.4%) ) 21.8% I n The M a j o r i t y ) o f C a s e s 12.5% 25-0% - 16.4%) Sometimes 37-5% 29.2% 14 . 3 % 30.9% F a i r l y R a r e l y 12.5% 16 . 7 % 14 . 3 % 12.7%) ) 21 8% N e v e r 4 . 2 % 16 . 7 % - 9-1%) N o n - R e s p o n s e 25.0% 8.3% 71.4% 23.6% TABLE X I V ( Q u e s t i o n 5 1 ( i ) : F i r s t P a r t ) M e t h o d A Method B N o n - R e s p o n s e U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) 1 6 . 7 % 58.3% 25.0% C h a i r m e n (N=7)• 14.3% 2 8 . 6 % 57.1% T o t a l s (N=55) 20.0% 50.9% 29.1% TABLE XV ( Q u e s t i o n 5 1 ( i ) : T h i r d P a r t ) A G r e a t D e a l Q u i t e A B i t Somewhat O n l y A L i t t l e M e thod A U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n t o t a l s N o m i n ees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) 1 2 . 5 % 8.3% 8.3% 14 . 3 % 5.4% 8.3% - 9.1% 3.6% N o n - R e s p o n s e ( S e c o n d a r y ) 4.2% Non R e s p o n s e U n i o n Nominees ( O r i g i n a l ) 25.0% 1 . 8 % M e t h o d B U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees N o m i n e e s (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) 29.2% 8,3% 4 . 2 % 4.2% 4.2% E m p l o y e r Nominees 25.0% 4 . 2 % 29.2% 16 . 7 % 14.3% 16.4% 16 . 4 % 9.1% 14 . 3 % 8.3% C h a i r m e n 57-1% 3.6% 5.4% T o t a l s 2 9 . 1 % TABLE X V I ( Q u e s t i o n 5 1 ( i i ) : F i r s t P a r t ) M e t h o d A M e t h o d B Non-Response U n i o n Nominees (N=24) 12.5% 62 . 5 % 25.0% E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) 16.7% 70.8% 12 . 5 % C h a i r m e n (N=7) 42 . 9 % 57.1% T o t a l s CH-55) 12.7% 63.6% 23.6% T A B L E X V I I ( Q u e s t i o n 5 1 ( i i ) - T h i r d P a r t ) M e t h o d A Method B U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i n e e s N o m i n e e s (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) 4.2% 8.3% A G r e a t D e a l Q u i t e A B i t Somewhat O n l y A L i t t l e N o n - R e s p o n s e ( S e c o n d a r y ) -8.3% 4.2% 4.2% 5-4% 5.4% l.< U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i n e e s Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) 45.8% 25.0% 28.6% 34.5% 8 . 3 % 29.2% 4.; 4.2% 1 6 . 4 % 12 . 5 % 14 . 3 % 7.3% 1.8% 1. N o n - R e s p o n s e ( O r i g i n a l ) U n i o n N o m i n e e s 2 9 - 2 % E m p l o y e r N o m i n e e s C h a i r m e n T o t a l s 1 2 . 5 % 5 7 . 1 % 2 5 . 4 % TABLE X V I I I ( Q u e s t i o n 52) U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) A l m o s t A l l 29.2% 25.0% 14 . 3 % 25.4%) ) 30.9%) The M a j o r i t y - 2 0 . 8 % 41 . 7 % 2 8 . 6 % Some 16 . 7 % 16 . 7 % 14 . 3 % 16.4% A V e r y Eew 8 . 3 % - 2 8 . 6 % 7-3%) ) 3.6%) None 4 . 2 % 4.2% -N o n - R e s p o n s e 2 0 . 8 % 12.5% 14 . 3 % 16.4% TABLE riX ( Q u e s t i o n 5 3 ( a ) ) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Method A 29.2% 29.2% 42 . 9 % 30.9% M e t h o d B 37-5% 41 . 7 % 14 . 3 % 36.4% Non - R e s p o n s e 33-3% 29.2% 42 . 9 % 32.7% TABLE XX ( Q u e s t i o n 54) U n i o n Nominees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) U s u a l l y 12.5% 4.2% 2 8 . 6 % 10.9%) ) 16.4%) O f t e n 8 .3% 29.2% -Sometimes 29.2% 25.0% - 23.6% V e r y R a r e l y 20.8% 29.2% 2 8 . 6 % 25.4%) ) 10.9%) N e v e r 16.7% 8.3% -N o n - R e s p o n s e 12.5% 4.2% 42.9% 12.7% TABLE X X I ( Q u e s t i o n 55) U n i o n Nominees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) U s u a l l y 16.7% 12.5% 2 8 . 6 % 16.4%) ) 20.0%) O f t e n 2 0 . 8 % 25.0% -Sometimes 29.2% 25.0% 1 4 . 3 % 25.4% V e r y R a r e l y 12.5% 12.5% 1 4 . 3 % 12.7%) ) 10.9%) N e v e r 12.5% 12.5% -Non-Response 8.3% 12.5% 42.9% 14.5% TABLE XXII (Question 57) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Yes 35-3% 29.2% - 27.3% No 50.0% 62.5% 57.1% 56.4% Non-Response 16.7% 8.3% 42.9% 16.4% TABLE X X I I I ( Q u e s t i o n 5 8 ( a ) ) Y e s U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N ominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) M e t h o d A 8.5% 3.6% No U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s G r a n d Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) T o t a l s (N=24) (N=24) (N=55) 8.3% 2 9 . 2 % 1 4 . 3 % 18.2% 21.8% M e t h o d B ' 20.8% 20.8% 1 8 . 2 % 41 . 7 % 29.2% 2 8 . 6 % 34.5% 52.7% Non-Response ( S e c o n d a r y ) 4.2% 4., 3-6% 8.3% 4.2% 1 4 . 3 % 7.3%- 10. ( Non-Response U n i o n Nominees ( P r i m a r y ) 8.3% E m p l o y e r N ominees 12.5% C h a i r m e n 1 2 . 5 % T o t a l s 14 . 5 % TABLE XXIV ( Q u e s t i o n 59) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N ominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Y e s 54.2% 62.5% - 50.9% No 33.3% 29.2% 57.1% 34.5% Non-Response 12.5% 8.3% 42.9% 14.5% I TABLE XXV (Question 60(a)) Yes No Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Method A Method B 8.3% 25.0% 41 .7% 25.0% 14 .5% 29.1% Union Employer Chairmen Totals Grand Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) Totals (N=24) (N=24) (N=55) 8.3% 16.7% 14.3% 12.7% 27.3% 8.3% 8.3% 28.6% 10 .9% 40.0% Non-Response (Secondary) 4.2% 12.5% 7-3% 16.7% .-'8.3% 14.3% 12.7% 20.0% Non-Response ( O r i g i n a l ) Union Nominees Employer Nominees 12.5% 4.2% Chairmen 12.5% Totals 12.7% TABLE XXVI ( Q u e s t i o n 7 1 ( a ) ) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N ominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) G r e a t e r B a r g a i n i n g Power 37 . 5 % 54.2% - 4 0 . 0 % Weaker B a r g a i n i n g Power 12 . 5 % 20 . 8 % 1 4 . 3 % 16.4%. N o n - E e s p o n s e .50.0% 25.0% 85.7% 4 3 . 6 % TABLE X X V I I ( Q u e s t i o n 7 1 ( h ) ) U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) A l m o s t A l l 4 . 2 % 4 . 2 % The M a j o r i t y 25.0% 20.8% Some 16 . 7 % 25.0% O n l y A V e r y Pew 8.3% 25.0% None 16 . 7 % -N o n - E e s p o n s e 29.2% 25.0% C h a i r m e n (N=7) 14 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 71.4% T o t a l s (N=55) 3.6%) ) 23.7% 2 0 . 0 % ) 20.0% 1 6 . 4 % ) ) 23.7% 7.3%) 32.7% TABLE X X V I I I ( Q u e s t i o n 56(a)) M e t h o d A Me t h o d B Non-Response U n i o n Nominees 1 ( N = 2 4 ) 4 1 . 7 % 37-5% 2 0 . 8 % E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) 50.0% 57.5% 12.5% C h a i r m e n (N=7) 42.9% 14.3% 4 2 . 9 % T o t a l s (N=55) 45.4% 34.5% 2 0 . 0 % TABLE XXIX ( Q u e s t i o n 5 6 ( b ) ) M e t h o d A Method B U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i n e e s N o m i n e e s (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) V e r y E f f e c t i v e Somewhat E f f e c t i v e 8 .3% Somewhat I n e f f e c t i v e 12 . 5 % N o t A t A l l E f f e c t i v e 12.5% 12.5% 8 . 3 % 12.5% N o n - R e s p o n s e ( S e c o n d a r y ) 8 .3% 16.7% 14 . 3 % 1.8% 14 . 3 % 10 . 9 % 9.1% 10 . 9 % 1 0 . 9 % U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i n e e s Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) 4.2% 8.3% 4.2% 12 . 5 % 8.3% N o n - R e s p o n s e U n i o n N o m i n e e s E m p l o y e r Nominees ( O r i g i n a l ) 2 0 . 8 % 12 . 5 % C h a i r m e n 42.9% 5.4% 5.4% 9.1% 12 . 5 % 8.3% 14 . 3 % 1 0 . 9 % 4.2% 4.2% 14 . 3 % 5.4% T o t a l s 2 0 . 0 % TABLE XXX ( Q u e s t i o n 56(c)) Method A U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o minees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) B e c a u s e Nom-i n e e s w i l l r e f u s e t o aba n d o n t h e i r i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n s 12.5% -25-< A n y O t h e r R e a s o n o r R e a s o n s * C h e c k e d B o t h R e s p o n s e s 1 2 . 5 % Non-Response ( S e c o n d a r y ) 1 6 . 7 % 4.; 14.3% 18.2% 14.3% 9.1% Non-Response ( O r i g i n a l ) 16,7% U n i o n Nominees 20.8% 14.3% 16.4% E m p l o y e r Nominees 16 . 7 % M e t h o d B Union'..:.' E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i n e e s N o m i n e e s (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) 1 6 . 7 % 25.0% 1 4 . 3 % 20.0% 4.2% 1 6 . 7 % 1 2 . 5 % C h a i r m e n 4 2 . 9 % 1.8% 1 2 . 7 % T o t a l s 2 1 . 8 % S c o r e d o n l y i f t h i s r e s p o n s e a l o n e was c h e c k e d . TABLE XXXI ( Q u e s t i o n . 6 2 ) U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) P r e t t y W e l l A l l . 2 0 . 8 % 2 0 . 8 % 2 8 . 6 % 21.8%) ) 18.2%) The M a j o r i t y 2 0 . 8 % 2 0 . 8 % -Some 20 . 8 % 20.8% 14 . 3 % 20.0% O n l y A Pew 8 . 3 % 16 . 7 % 14 . 3 % 12 . 7 % ) ) 9.1%) None 12 . 5 % 4.2% 14 . 3 % N o n - R e s p o n s e 16 . 7 % 16 . 7 % 28.6% 18.2% TABLE X X X I I ( Q u e s t i o n 63) P r e t t y W e l l A l l M o s t Some O n l y A Few None No n - R e s p o n s e U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n N o minees Nominees (N=7) (N=24) (N=24) 33.3% 20.8% 29.2% 16 . 7 % 1 2 . 5 % 2 9 . 2 % 2 9 . 2 % 16.7% 1 2 . 5 % 14 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 42 . 9 % T o t a l s (N=55) 1.8%) ) 9.1% 7.3%) 29.1% 2 1 . 8 % ) ) 4 3 . 6 % 2 1 . 8 % ) 18.2% TABLE XXXIII (Question 64(a)) 4 Union Nominees (N=24) Employer Nominees (N=24) Chairmen (N=7) Totals (N=55) Almost Always 8.3% 4.2% 14.3% 7.3%) ) 38.2%) Often 25.0% 54.2% 28.6% Sometimes 20.8% 25.0% - 20.0% Rarely 20.8% 4.2% 28.6% 14.5%) ) 5.4%) Never 8.3% 4.2% -Non-Response 16.7% 8.3% 28.6% 14.5% TABLE XXXIV (Question 65) Union Nominees: (N=24) In Which I t Occurred Another Non-Response Employer Inside; Union Outside F i f t y - F i f t y 16.7% 29.2% 33-3% 8.3% 12.5% Employer Chairmen Nominees .(N=7) (N=24) 29.2% 16.7% 41.7% 4.2% 8.3% 14.3% 42 .9% 42 .9% Totals (N=55) 21.8% 25.4% 38.2% 5.4% 9.1% TABLE XXXV (Question 66) Union Nominees (N=24) Employer Nominees (N=24) Chairmen (N=7) Totals (N=55) Almost Always 8.3% 8.3% 14.3% 9.1%) ) 27.3%) Often 16.7% 41.7% 14.3% Sometimes 33.3% 33.3% 28.6% 32.7% Rarely 25.0% 12.5% - 16.4%) ) 1.8%) Never 4.2% - -Non-Response 12.5% 41.7% 42.9% 12.7% TABLE XXXVI (Question 67) Almost Always The Majority Of The Time Sometimes Rarely Never Non-Response Union Nominees (N=24) 29.2% 16.7% 29.2% 8.3% 16.7% Employer Nominees (N=24) 12.5% 54.2% 12.5% 12.5% 8.3% Chairmen (N=7) 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% Totals (N=55) 21.8% ) ) 54.5% ) 32.7% ) 20.0% 10.9% ) - ) 10.9% - ) 14.5% TABLE XXXVII (Question 69) Union Nominees (N=24) Employer Nominees (N=24) Chairmen (N=7) Totals (N=55) Usually Quite Frequently 8 .3% 50.0% 62.5% 28.6% 3.6%) ) ) 52.7%) 56.3% Sometimes 29.2% 25.0% 28.6% 27-3% Rarely Never 4 .2% 8 .3% 14; 3% 7.3%) ) - ) 7.3% Non-Response 8 .3% 4 .2% 28.6% 9.1% TABLE XXXVIII (Question 70) Union Nominees (N=24) Employer Nominees (N=24) Chairmen (N=7) Totals (N=55) Almost Always 20.8% 12.5% 28.6% 18.2%) 36.4%) Quite Often 29-2% 54.2% -Sometimes 20.8% 25.0% - 20.0% Quite Rarely 8.3% - 14.3% 5.4%) 3.6%) Never 4.2% - 14.3% Non-Response 16.7% 8.3% 42.9% 16.4% TABLE XXXIX ( Q u e s t i o n 73) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) A l w a y s 41.7% 29.2% 14.3% 32.7% ) ) 70.9% F r e q u e n t l y 20.8% 50.0% 57.1% 38.2%) Sometimes 20.8% 12.5% - 14.5% R a r e l y 4.2% 4.2% - 3.6% ) ) 3..6% N e v e r - - ) Non-Response 12.5% 4.2% 28.6% 10.9% TABLE X L ( Q u e s t i o n 7 4 ( a ) ) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) I n c r e a s e s 62 . 5 % 58.3% 57-1% 6 0 . 0 % D e c r e a s e s - 12.5% 14 . 3 % 7.3% Has No E f f e c t 12.5% 8.3% - 9.1% N o n - R e s p o n s e 25-0% 20.8% 2 8 . 6 % 23-6% TABLE X L I ( Q u e s t i o n 75) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o m i nees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) A l m o s t A l w a y s 58.5% 58-3% 4-2.9% 56.4-% ) ) 7 8.2% Q u i t e .©ften 20 . 8 % 25.0% 14 . 3 % 21.8% ) Sometimes 8.3% 4-. 2% - 5.4% R a r e l y - - - ) ) 1 . 8 % N e v e r - 4.2% - 1.8% ) N o n - R e s p o n s e 12 . 5 % 8.3% 42 . 9 % 14 . 5 % TABLE X L I I ( Q u e s t i o n 76) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N ominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (-N=24) P r e t t y W e l l A l w a y s 62 . 5 % 37-5% 57-1% 5 0.9%) ) 6 9 . 1 % Q u i t e O f t e n 12 . 5 % 29.2% - 1 8 . 2 % ) Sometimes 12 . 5 % 8 . 3 % - 9.1% R a r e l y - - - - ) ) 1.8% N e v e r - 4.2% - 1 . 8 % ) Non- R e s p o n s e 12 . 5 % 2 0 . 8 % 4 2 . 9 % 2 0 . 0 % TABLE XLIII (Question 79) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Pret t y Well A l l 58 .3% 37-5% 28.6% 4-5.4%) ) 72.7% The Majority 20.8% 29.2% 4-2.9% 27.3%) Some 8 .3% 12.5% - 9.1% A Very Pew - 12.5% - 5.4%) ) 5.4% None - - — - ) Non-Response 12.5% 8.3% 28.6% 12.7% TABLE XLIV (Question 80) U n i o n N o m i nees (-N=240 E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) P r e t t y W e l l A l l 45.8% 50.0% 4-2.9% 47.3%) ) 25.4%) The M a j o r i t y 25.0% 25.0% 28.6% Some 12.5% 8.3% - 9.1% A V e r y Pew 4.2% 8.3% - 5.4%) ) - ) None - - -N o n - R e s p o n s e 12.5% 8.3% 28.6% 12.7% TABLE XLV ( Q u e s t i o n 8 2 ( a ) ) U n i o n N ominees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) N e a r l y A l l 33.3% 33.3% 14 . 3 % 30.9%) The M a j o r i t y 33-3% 33.3% 2 8 . 6 % 32.7%) Some 16 . 7 % 16 . 7 % 14 . 3 % 1 6 . 4 % A V e r y Few 4.2% 4.2% - 3.6%) ) 1.8%) None - 4.2% -Non-Response 12 . 5 % 8 .3% 42 . 9 % 14 . 5 % TABLE X L V I ( Q u e s t i o n 8 3 ( a ) ) I m p a r t i a l P a r t i s a n N o n - R e s p o n s e U n i o n N ominees (N=24) 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) 4 5 . 8 % 4 5 . 8 % 8 .3% C h a i r m e n (N=7) 42 . 9 % 1 4 . 3 % 42 . 9 % T o t a l s (N=55) 36.4% 4 3 . 6 % 2 0 . 0 % TABLE X L V I I ( Q u e s t i o n 84) U n i o n N o m i n e e s (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) E l i m i n a t e A l m o s t E n t i r e l y 4.2% Reduce Q u i t e A B i t Reduce To Some E x t e n t 8.$% Reduce A L i t t l e B i t 4.2% Have No E f f e c t 62 .5% N o n - R e s p o n s e 2 0 . 8 % 2 5 . 0 % 4.2% 8.3% 58 . 3 % 4.2% 28 . 6 % 28.6% 14.3% 2 8 . 6 % 1.8%) ) 1 2 . 7 % ) 10.9%) 9.1% 9.1%) ) 6 3 . 6 % 54.5%) 14.5% U n i o n N o m i n e e s N o t P a i d E m p l o y e r Nominees N o t P a i d N e i t h e r P a i d 2 9 . 2 % 4.; 4.2% 14 . 3 % 1 8 . 2 % T h e s e r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d i n t h e p e r c e n t a g e -r e s p o n s e s \" g i v e n i n t h e r e g u l a r t a b l e ; t h i s p e r c e n t a g e i s m e r e l y s u p p l e m e n t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n . TABLE X L V I I I (Question 85) Union Employer Chairmen T o t a l s Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) A l l 33-3% 16.7% 14.3% 23.6%) ) 65.4% The M a j o r i t y 37.5% 41.7% 57.1% 41.8%) Some 12.5% 25.0% - 16.4% A Eew - 8.3% - 3.6% ) 5.4% None 4.2% - - 1.8%) Non-Response 12 .5% 8.3% 28.6% 1.8% TABLE XLIX (Question 86(a)) Union Employer Chairmen T o t a l s Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) P r e t t y W e l l A l l 58.3% 45.8% 57.1% 52.7% ) 74.5% The M a j o r i t y 16.7% 29.2% 14.3% 21.8%) Some 12.5% 12.5% - 10.9% A Very Pew - - - - ) ) 1.8% None - 4.2% - I J Non-Response 12.5% 8.3% 28.6% 12.7% TABLE L (Question 86(b)) Union Employer Chairmen;:- Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Most Important 41.7% 37-5% 42 . 9 % 40.0% Quite Important 29.2% 50.0% 28.6% 38.2% Not Very Important - •e -Not Part of The Job 4 .2% - - 1.8% Non-Response 25.0% 12.5% 28.6% 20.0% TABLE LI (Question 87(a)) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Pret t y Well A l l 70.8% 50.0% 42 . 9 % 58.2%) ) 81.1 The Majority 16.7% 33-3% 14.3% 23.6%) Some - 8.3% - 3.6% A Very Pew - - 14 .3% 1.8% ) 1.8% None - - - - ) Non-Resvonse 12.5% 8.3% 28.6% 12.7%. TABLE LII (Question 87(b)) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N =55) (N=24) (N=24) Most Important 45.8% 12.5% - 2 5 . 4 % Quite Important 37-5% 79.2% 57-1% 58.2% Not Very Important - - -Not Part of The Job - - 14.3% 1.8% Non-Response 16.7% 8.3% 28.6% 14.5% TABLE LII I (Question 89(a)) Union Employers Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Pretty Well A l l 66.7% 45.8% 57.1% 56.4%) ) 69.1% The Majority 8.3% 20.8% - 12.7%) Some 4.2% 16.7% - 9-1% A Very Few 4.2% 8.3% ' - 5-4%) ) 5 . 4 % None - - - - ) Non-Response 16.7% 8.3% 42.9% 16.4% TABLE L I V ( Q u e s t i o n 8 9 ( b ) ) U n i o n Nominees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) A l l 20.8% 16 . 7 % 42 . 9 % 21.8%) ) 30.9%) The M a j o r i t y - 25.0% 45.8% -Some 4.2% 8.3% - 5.4% A V e r y Few 8.3% 12.5% 14 . 3 % 10.9%) ) 5.4%) None 12.5% - -Non-Response 29.2% 16 . 7 % 42 . 9 % 25.4% TABLE LV ( Q u e s t i o n 9 9 ( a ) ) P r e t t y W e l l A l l The M a j o r i t y Some A V e r y Pew None Non-Response U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=24) (N=24) 75.0% 8.3% 16 . 7 % 50.0% 33.3% 4.2% 12.5% 71.4% 2 8 . 6 % T o t a l s (N=55) 63.6%) ) 8 1 . 8 % 18.2%) 1.8%) ) 1.8% - ) 16.4% TABLE L V I ( Q u e s t i o n 1 0 0 ( b ) ) U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nomine e s (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) N e a r l y A l l The Time — — — - ?) ;) 9.3%) The M a j o r i t y Of The Time — 1 2 . 5 % 2 8 . 6 % Sometimes 2 0 . 8 % 25.0% 1 4 . 3 % 2 1 . 8 % P r e t t y R a r e l y 50.0% 4 5 . 8 % 2 8 . 6 % 45.4%) ) 5.4%) P r o b a b l y N e v e r 8.3% 4.2% -N o n - R e s p o n s e 2 0 1 8 % 12.5% 2 8 . 6 % 1 8 . 2 % TABLE L V I I ( Q u e s t i o n 1 0 0 ( c ) ) U n i o n . Nominees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n •(N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) N e a r l y A l l 37.5% 45.8% 28 . 6 % 40 . 0 % ) ) 29.1%) The M a j o r i t y 25.0% 33.3% 2 8 . 6 % Some 8.3% - 14 . 3 % 5.4% A V e r y Pew 4.2% - - 1.8%) ) - ) P r o b a b l y N e v e r - - -Non-Response 25.0% 20.8% 2 8 . 6 % 23.6% TABLE LVIII (Question 101) Union Nominees (N=24) Employer Nominees (N=24) Chairmen (N=7) Totals (N=55) Nothing 25.0% 25.0% - 21.8%) ) 40.0%) Not Very Much 37.5% 43.8% 28.6% Quite A B i t 4.2% 20.8% 14.3% 12.7% A Great Deal 8.3% 4.2% 14.3% 7.3%) ) ) 1.8%) Can Usually S e t t l e — — 14.3% Non-Response 25.0% 4.2% 28.6% 16.4% TABLE LIX (Question 102) Union Employer . Chairmen Totals Nominees . Nominee's:', (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Almost Always 29-2% 33-3% 14.3% 29.1%) ) 56.4% The Majority ) of The Time 33-3% 25.0% 14.3% 27-3%) Sometimes 8.3% 12.5% - 9.1% F a i r l y Rarely 8.3% 4.2% 28.6% 9-1%) ) 9.1% Never - - - - ) Non-Response 20.8% 25.0% 42.9% 25.4% TABLE LX (Question 1 0 3 ) Pretty Well Always The Majority Of The Time Some Of The Time On Rare Occasions Probably Never Non-Response Union Nominees (N=24) 5 0 . 0 % 1 2 . 5 % 8.3% 4-. 2 % 2 5 . 0 % Employer Chairmen Nominees (N=7) (N=24) 4-1.7% 16.7% 12.5% 28.6% 28.6% 4.2% 8.3% 16.7% 42.9% Totals (N=55) 43.6% ) 60.0% ) 16.4% 9.1% 3 . 6 % ) ) 7.2% 3 . 6 % ) 23.6% TABLE LXI (Question 104) Union Nominees (N=24) Employer Nominees (N=24) Chairmen (N=7) Totals (N=55) Nearly Always 8.3% 8.3% 14.3% 9.1%) ) ) 30.9%) The Majority Of The Time 33.3% .33-3% 14.3% Sometimes , 29.2% 37.5% 28.6% 32.7% F a i r l y Rarely 8*3% 4.2% - 5.4-%) ) 5 . 4 % ) Probably Never 4.2% 4.2% 14.3% Non-Response 16.7% . 12.5% 28.6% 16.4% TABLE L X I I (Question 106) Almost Always The M a j o r i t y Of The Time Some Of The Time R a r e l y Probably Never Non-Response Union Nominees (N=24) 54.2% 16.7% 12.5% 16.7% Employer Nominees (N=24) 54.2% 20.8% 16.7% 4.2% 4.2% Chairmen (N=7) 57.1% 14.3% T o t a l s (N=55) 54.6%) ) 72.8% ) 18 .2%) 12.7% 1.8% 28.6% ) 1.8% - ) 12.7% TABLE L X I I I (Question 107) Almost Always The M a j o r i t y Of The Time Some Of The Time R a r e l y Probably Never Non-Response Union Nomine e s (N=24) 33-3% 16.7% 33.3% Employer Nominees (N=24) 25-0% 54.2% 8.3% Chairmen (N=7) 14.3% 28.6% 42.' 16.7% 12.5% 14.3% T o t a l s (N=55) 27.3%) ) 61.9% ) 34.6%) 23.6% - ) ) 0.0% - ) 14.6% TABLE LXIV (Question 3 9 : Method A) Union Employer Chairmen • Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24); (N=24) Nearly Always 4.2% 8 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 7 . 3 % ) 2 5 . 5 % The Majority Of ) The Time 20.8% 16.7% 14.3% 18.2%) Sometimes 33-3% 58.3% 28.6% 43.6% Rarely 16.7% 8.3% - 10.9%) ) 14.5% Never 8.3% - - 3-6%) Non-Response 16 .7% 8.3% 42 . 9 % 16.4% TABLE LXV (Question 3 9 : Method B) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Nearly Always 12.5% 4.2% - 7 -3%) ) 47 . 3 % The Majority Of ) The Time 41.7% 5 0 . 0 % - 40.0%) Sometimes 2 5 - 0 % 25.0% 28.6% 2 5-4% Rarely 4.2% 12.5% 28.6% 10 . 9 % ) ) 12.7% Never - 4.2% - 1.8%) Non-Response 16.7% 4.2% 42.9% 14.5% TABLE LXVI (Question 4-1) Both Wrong Biased Right Impartial Neither Other Non-Response Union Nominees (N=24) 16.7% 4-1.7% 4-. 2% 37-5% Employer Nominees (N=24-) 16.7% 37.5% 12.5% 33-3% Chairmen (N=7) 28.6% 4-22 9% 28.6% Totals (N=55) 14-. 5% 38.2% • 1.8% 10.9% 34-. 5% TABLE LXVII (Question 4-4-) Pretty Well Always The Majority Of The Time Sometimes Rarely Never Non-Response Union Nominees . (N=24) 16.7% 37.5% 8.3% 4-. 2% 4-. 2% 29.2% Employer Nominees (N=24-) 12.5% 54-. 2% 12.5% 8.3% 12.5% Chairmen (N=7) 14-. 3% 4-2.9% Totals (N=55) 14-. 59i ) 54-) 42.9% 40.0% 14.5% 5-4% 1.8% 23.6% ) 7 TABLE LXVIII (Question 4-5) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Pretty Well Always 3 3 - 3 % 16.7% 14.3% 2 3 . 6 % ) ) 5 4 . 5 % The Majority Of ) The Time 2 5 . 0 % 4 5 . 8 % - 3 0 . 9 % ) Sometimes 4 . 2 % 1 2 . 5 % 14.3% 9.1% Rarely 1 2 . 5 % 4 . 2 % 28.6% 1 0 . 9 % ) ) 14.5% Never - 8.3% - 3.6%) Non-Response 2 5 - 0 % 1 2 . 5 % 42.9% 2 1 . 8 % TABLE LXIX' (Question 46) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) ( N = 5 5 ) (N=24) (N=24) Increase 37-5% 5 4 . 2 % 28.6% 43.6% Decrease 20.8% 20.8% - 18.2% Have No E f f e c t 16 .7% 4.2% 14.3% 10.9% Non-Response 2 5 - 0 % 2 0 . 8 % 5 7 . 1 % 27-32 '0 TABLE LXX (Question 47) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Increase 20.8% 33-3% 28.6% 27.3% Decrease 29.2% 33-3% - 27.3% Have No E f f e c t 12.5% 8.3% 14.3% 10.9% Non-Response 37-5% 25.0% 57.1% 34.5% TABLE LXXI (Question 48: F i r s t Part) Method A Method B Non-Response Union Nominees (N=24) 12.5% 54.2% 33.3% Employer Nominees (N=24) 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% Chairmen (N=7) 57.1% 42.9% Totals (N=55) 12.7% 60.0% 27-3% TABLE L X X I I ( Q u e s t i o n 4 8 : T h i r d P a r t ) Method A M e t h o d B U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N o minees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) U n i o n E m p l o y e r C h a i r m e n T o t a l s N ominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) A G r e a t D e a l 4.2% Q u i t e A B i t .4.2% Somewhat -O n l y A L i t t l e N o n - R esponse ( S e c o n d a r y ) 4.2% 12.5% 4.; 37.3% 1.8% 1.8% Non-Response U n i o n Nominees E m p l o y e r Nominees ( O r i g i n a l ) {;, •• 33-3% 16 . 7 % 4 5 . 8 % 5 0 . 0 % 2 8 . 6 % 4 5 . 4 % 8.3% 8.3% 4.2% C h a i r m e n 42 . 9% 1 4 . 3 % 4.2% 1 4 . 3 % 7.3% 1.8% 1.8% 3.6% T o t a l s 27-3% TABLE LXXIII (Question 61(a)) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (N=7) (N=55) (N=24) (N=24) Very Frequently 4.2% - 28.6% 5.4%) ) 25.4% F a i r l y ) Frequently 4.2% 37-5% 14.3% 20.0%) Sometimes 20.8% 4.2% - 10.9% Rarely 33-3% 37-5% - 30.9%) ) 32.7% Never - - 14.3% 1.8%) Non-Response 37.5% 20.8% .42.9% 30.9% TABLE LXXIV (Question 61(h)) Union Nominees (N=24) Employer Nominees (N=24) Chairmen (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) Very F r e q u e n t l y 8.3% 4 .2% 14.3% 7.3%) ) ) 7.3%) F a i r l y F r e q u e n t l y 8.3% 8.3% -Sometimes 12.5% 12.5% - 10.9% F a i r l y R a r e l y 25.0% 50.0% 42 .9% 38 .2%) ) 9.1%) Never 4 .2% 12.5% 14.3%' Non-Response 41 .7% 12.5% 28.6% 27-3% TABLE LXXV ( Q u e s t i o n 6 8 ( a ) ) U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) Y e s , D e f i n i t e l y 25.0% 33.3% 2 8 . 6 % 29.1%) ) 20.0%) P r o b a b l y 16.7% 25.0% 14.3% P e r h a p s 12.5% 20.8% - 14.5% P r o b a b l y N o t 16.7% 4.2% - 9.1%) ) 9.1%) D e f i n i t e l y N o t 12.5% 4.2% 14.3% Non-Response 1 6 . 7 % 12.5% 4 2 . 9 % 1 8 . 2 % TABLE L X X V I ( Q u e s t i o n 6 8 ( b ) ) U n i o n N o m inees (N=24) E m p l o y e r Nominees (N=24) C h a i r m e n (N=7) T o t a l s (N=55) Y e s , D e f i n i t e l y 37.5% 16.7% 14.3% 25.4%) • ) 21.8%) P r o b a b l y 25.0% 25.0% -P e r h a p s 8.3% 29.2% 14.3% 1 8 . 2 % P e r h a p s N o t 12.5% 12.5% - 10.9%) ) 5.4%) D e f i n i t e l y N o t 4.2% 4.2% 14.3% N o n - R e s p o n s e 12.5% 12.5% 57.1% 18.2% TABLE LXXVII (Question 72(a)) Union Employer Chairmen Totals Nominees Nominees (.(.N=7:),x, (N=55) (N=24-) (N=24-) Almost Always 2 9.2% 20.8%' 28.6% 25.4-%) ) 56.3% The Majority Of ) The Time 20.8% 4-1.7% 28.6% 30.9% Sometimes 25-0% 29.2% - 23.6% Rarely 8.3% - 14-. 3% 5.4-%) ) 7.2% Never 4-. 2% - - 1.8%) Non-fesponse 12.5% 8.3% 28.6% 12.7% TABLE LXXVIII (Question 7 2(h)) Employer Nominee Union Nominee Non-Response Union Nomine e s (N=24-) 4-1.7% 5 8 . 3 % Employer Nominees (N=24-) 12 .5% 8 7 - 5 % Chairmen (':.. ; ..'\"^ • -probably never . ;. ...':....;.- . • Comments,- i f any:- • •. - • -. .''.V' .\".-'- .'• .: -. ' - • • • • • . 10$. (a) What kinds 'of.things, t p..your... knowledge, have some chairmen done that'tended, i n your opinion,... to..hinder unanimous. agreement being reached on -a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board?- L i s t these below and st a t e approximately how' commonly,, i n your o p i n i o n ^ each probably occurs: (b) What kinds of t h i n g s , to your knowledge, have some nominees done that tended, i n your o p i n i o n , to hinder unanimous agreement being ' reached on a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board? . L i s t these'below and st a t e approximately how commonly,, .in. your o p i n i o n , each probably occurs: 109. (a) Are there any things which some chairmen, have. ..he en'-known to do th a t , i n your o p i n i o n , destroyed the chances' of -agreement .-being • • -reached- when i t could-..have been reached- i f these t h i n g s had' not occurred? L i s t things\" of t h i s kind : that you/-hap pen to know of below, and s t a t e how commonly, i n your :.opinion, ...each of them :- probably occurs. \" j ; - ',.:..: (Some or a l l of these may, i n your opinion., be. .the same as those- : you have already put down i n answer, to Question 108(a) above, and, i f so, simply stat e t h i s , or else repeat them):_ (more space on next page)' 39-(b) Are there any things which some nominees have been known to do t h a t , i n your o p i n i o n , destroyed the chances of agreement'being reached when i t could have been reached i f these ;things had not occurred? L i s t t h i n g s of t h i s k i n d that you happen to.' know of below, .and., stat e how commonly, i n your o p i n i o n , each, of. them-• •- probably occurs. (Some or- a l l 'of the-se. may, i n your o p i n i o n , be the... .same.; .as those •you\" have\" already put--down-in. answer to Question • ••108(.b.)..above,\"\"arid\",\" i f ' so,\" -simply s t a t e t h i s , or else repeat them): 110, -When. C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards manage to b r i n g about an agreement between •-- —the-two... .disputing p a r t i e s , what i s there about the C o n c i l i a t i o n Board -that-, causes t h i s . w i l l i n g n e s s to agree which didn't e x i s t before? Please give your opinions on t h i s below: •111. (a) What, i n your o p i n i o n , are the m o s t \" d i f f i c u l t f e a t u r e s of the job of a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board chairman? L i s t these below: .(b)-What r . i n - your opinion,--are\" the most' d i f f i c u l t \"features of the job -of - a - C o n c i l i a t i o n Board n o m i n e e ? 1 L i s t these below:. (more space on next -page) -40-112. (a) ..In your o p i n i o n , do chairmen ever do things with, which they do not agree i n order t o appear i m p a r t i a l to the nominees? In my opi n i o n , chairmen do'so: „ v e r y - f r e q u e n t l y ' ' \"' ' ~ . f a i r l y - f r e q u e n t l y • ' -' \" ' sometimes -• . .. f a i r l y r a r e l y \" _„ never -Comments., i f any-: (b) What s o r t s of things? Could you give some examples below? 113. How f r e q u e n t l y , i n your o p i n i o n , i s the outcome of a C o n c i l i a t i o n Board's - e f f o r t s p r e t t y w e l l known before the Board begins i t s s i t t i n g s ? ..... i n almost a l l cases i n the m a j o r i t y of cases i n some cases in. a very few cases ' ' - : in;, no • cases ' Comments, i f any: • '\"\"\"'\" . .-. . .:. 114. In those.-case-s i n which /the; outcome of ..a. C o n c i l i a t i o n : Board's e f f o r t s are p r e t t y w e l l known before the. Board .begins i t s s i t t i n g s : (a) In what ways w i l l t h i s a f f e c t the. behaviour of the chairman,' ' \" i n your opinion? ' \"\"• (more space on next page.).. -41 -'(b) In.what ways w i l l \"this a f f e c t the behaviour of the nominees, i n your opinion? ' 115. I f there are any f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the operation of C o n c i l i a t i o n Boards which you f e e l have been e i t h e r inadequately covered, or not covered at a l l i n the foregoing questions, could you o u t l i n e these •-- -factors and your thoughts about them below? 1 -42-116. What, i f anything, i s , i n your o p i n i o n , wrong w i t h the B.C. c o n c i l i a t i o n machinery as i t e x i s t s at present, and what, i f any, -changes would you l i k e to see made i n t h i s machinery, and why? So, more simply s t a t e d , what I'am asking i s : 1. What'i, i f anything, do you t h i n k i s wrong wi t h the B.C„ c o n c i l i a t i o n - m a c h i n e r y as i t e x i s t s at present? 2. What, i f any> changes would you l i k e to see made i n t h i s machinery? 3. Why would you l i k e to see these changes made? (more space on next page) -43-I would l i k e to thank you most- • s i n c e r e l y f o r having taken\" the time and the tro u b l e to give-me the b e n e f i t of your experience by answering these questions. "@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0105913"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Sociology"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "British Columbia industrial conciliators : a study in role perception, performance, and conflict"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/39521"@en .