The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY. JULY 14, 1914. TRADE UNIONS AND POLITICS

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 166, 14 July 1914, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY. JULY 14, 1914. TRADE UNIONS AND POLITICS

far tat onue that lock, utittmea, for the wrong that needa rraittamm, ■Tot the future in the distance Aad the good that we <xm am.

A question of very serious importance to labour organisations and their members has been raised recently in New Zealand and Australia—the amount of discretion that trade unions may exercise in the use of their funds. Trade unions were 'originally mutual benevolent societies; now they are primarily industrial organisations. But from "neither point of view can they Ibc regarded as political organisations, and therefore their right to allocate any portion of their funds -for political! purposes has been very seriously questioned. The decision of the British Courts four years ago in the famous Osborne case may be supposed to represent tbe strictly legal view of the position, and though this has been modified to some extent by the passage of the Trade L'nions Bill last year, it is still the recognised authority to which the Colonial Courts must refer. Tlic Federal Arbitration Court in Australia, when appealed to on this question a few weeks ago, took practically the same line as Mr, Massey when the 'New Zealand Timber Workers' Federation approached him «ti :&is question last week. He reminded them of the Osborne case, and he pointed out that onr own Arbitration Act provides for the registration of unions " only for the purposes of the Act "—in other words, it recognises them only as industrial organ, isations. It is an interesting question how far the value of the labour organisations to the workens is limited, and

prejudiced by this strict interpretation of the letter of the laiw in England as weTl as in 'Australia and New Zealand.

It may bo well to refer twit-dy to the finding in the Ctbornc caso as representing the principle on which the colonial, as will as tbe English, interpretation of the law is based. Osborne was a member of a trad*e union, which used some portion of its funds- in supporting a Labour candidate for Parliament: and he did not approve of the candidate selected. He therefore applied to the court for a decision as to whether bis union could legally use for political purposes the contributions he had subscribed for industrial purposes, without hio approval and consent. The Court of Appeal gave a majority decision in his- favour, ruling that such use of trade union funds was "ultra vires''—that is, the labour organisation which used their funds in this way had exceeded ihvir powers. But one of the judges. Lord Shaw, went further, and maintained that the principle of a compulsory levy enforced by trade unions for political and partizan purposes \ras absKjlu-tely illegal, being "contrary to sound public policy and to law."' The effect of this judgment was to make it impossible for the unions to employ their funds for political purposes if any member objected, or to enforce any levy for such purposes. As the Labour members in the House of

ConHuncs vivrc supported by contributions from union funds, and the heavy expenses of campaigning and fighting election* were paid' largely from the same source, .this dvcicion, for the moment, completely paralysed the political activities of the workers at Home. One bcnvlici.il effect of this deadlock was that the Liberal Government decided that England should fall into line with nearly all other civilised countries, and pay ils Parliamentary representatives a • fixcdl salary. The members of the Jlouse"of 'Commons now receive .£■loo a year, and one difficulty raised by the Osborne judgment woe thus settled. But the labour organisations t'brbughout the Empire were still obviously limited, and embarrassed by this decision, and an attempt was made to deal with the whole question by direct legislation.

Early in 1011 the Home Secretary introduced a Trade L'nions Bill, which was

in effect an attempt to mitigate the the Osborne judgment. The Bill provided that the funds of a trade union might bo applied to political objects only if the majority of members approved of the object by a secret ballot: but payments for such objects must in all cases be made out of a separate fund maintained for that purpose. Any member formally notifying his unwillingness fo contribute to the political fund was to be exempted, and contribution to tho fund was not to be made a condition of membership of the union. The Opposition objected to the Bill on the ground that, minorities and objectors were not adequately protected, and the Labour members objected on the ground that minorities were too carefully considered. Tlic Hill passed its second reading in May. 101:2, but did not get to the Committee stage. II was reintroduced, however, in August .if the same year, and'passed its third reading iv January. 101:1. It subsequently parsed the Lords., and received the lioyul assent, and it may now be accepted as the foundation on whioh the political powers of trade I unions in regard to their finances are legally .based. Needless to ray it did not

[cntiudy satisfy the extreme section of It-he Labour party: and in September. 1012. the Trade Union Congress passed :i resolution refusing to accept the Bill |yr -»-j»«- of «e'Ueraent "unlet* anx-ndcl 'IHIPPSIw**I v Jo embody the complete

reversal of tbe Osborne judgment." But, as we have already indicated, to reverse the Osborne judgment completely would be to sacrifice tlhe rights of individuals and minorities altogether to the majority in every union; and we do not suppose that Parliament in New Zealand or Australia, any more than in England, would sanction so drastic a modification of the law except in the very unlikely contingency of a demand put forward by a very substantial majority of th-e electors.