TRADE UNION LAW

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18969, 6 April 1927, Page 11

TRADE UNION LAW

DRASTIC CHANGES PROPOSED. restriction of right to STRIKE.. BILL BEFORE COMMONS. (Bt CABLE—PKES3 ASSOCIATION'—-COPYRIGHT.) (AUSTRALIAN AxD JT.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION.) (Received April sth, 7 p.m.) LONDON, April 4. In the House of Commons the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill was read a first time. The Bill stipulated that any strike having any object besides the furtherance of a trade dispute within the industry in which the strikers are engaged is illegal if designed or calculated to coerce the Government or intimidate a substantial portion of the community.

The Bill lays down a penalty of two years' imprisonment for instigators and participators. It . forbids intimidatory picketing, and prohibits the picketing of non-strikers' residences under penalty of £2O and three months' imprisonment.

Henceforth it will be illegal to require a trade unionist to contribute to a political fund unless he specifically agrees to do so in writing, and the political funds of a Trade Union must be kept separate from the ordinary funds. Civil servants are forbidden to belong to trade unions which cater for noncivil servants or are affiliated to organisations the federation of whose membership is not confined to persons employed under the Crown, or which have political objects. Finally, local and other public authorities are forbidden to make employment conditional upon membership of a trade union or in any way favour trade union employees. The Bill lays down a penalty of £lO or three months' imprisonment for a breach of contract of service with a local or public authority. The Act does not apply to Northern Ireland.

I bitter fight certain I , - LABOUR OPENING NATIONAL CAMPAIGN. (Received April stli, 9 p.m.) LONDON, April 5. Before Labour members saw the Trade Union Bill they decided to figlit it line by line, and since seeing its text their determination has been intensified. , The Bill proved far more comprehensive than was anticipated, even by the Conservative Press. . . "There can be but one opinion among the Labour members of the House ot Commons," says the ' Daily f®!®* graph." "This opens a battle royal. The second reading is not expected before Easter, but Labour members are already preparing a joint_ national campaign by political and industrial sections of the Party. Conservative' opinion cordially approves of the Bill, while the Liberal papers, the "Daily News' and the "Daily Chronicle," do not comment. The political correspondent of the "Daily Herald'' regards the clause headed, "Prevention of Intimidation, as probably the most contentious, expressing the opinion that this imposes such restrictions on picketing as leaves the Courts at liberty to declare almost any sort illegal. In this connexion it may be stated that the Bill defines intimidation as meaning, "To cause in a person's mind a reasonable apprehension to him or any member •of his family of damage to his _ property. ' "Injury" includes physical injury, boycott, loss of any kind, or exposure to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. In an editorial the "Daily Herald" says: "This amazing measure has been introduced without a mandate. The Government dare not submit it to a General Election. _ It is not even the fruit of consideration by a Royal Commission. It is a purely irresponsible measure fomented by a Tory organisation supplemented by kindred organisations and employers, and plotted _in Cabinet while Mr Baldwin was makniy: hypocritical speeches about 'goodwill' and 'peace' in industry. The Government has made its own doom doubly sure. The Bill will lead to such a revival of working-class activity that Mr Baldwin and his associates will havn cause to regret their stupidity." Mr Arthur Henderson says the Bill is a direct attack upon trades unions and is a challenge to the workers.