COMPULSORY UNIONISM.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19667, 10 July 1929, Page 2

COMPULSORY UNIONISM.

♦ APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF COURT. <?BES3 AESOCLtTIOS TELEGKAM.) WELLINGTON - , July 9. In an appeal case, Butt and others v. Jrazer and others, Mr Stevenson, for plaintiff, submitted that the Arbitration Court had gone beyond its jurisdiction in making the order complained of. The' Court might give preference to unionists, but could not prevent non-unionists from working. The Court had no power to force any person to join a union against his will. The Arbitration Court had no statutory authority to deal with the relations of employers as between themselves, nor with relations of the workers as between themselves, nor with the relations between workers and the workers' union, but could deal with the relations between employers and workers only. The relations effected by the order objected to were not relations between the employers and workers. The history of the Arbitration Acts showed that Parliament never intended to confer on the Court power to establish compulsory unionism. Mr Ongley, for defendants, contended that the only function of the Supreme Court with regard to the Arbitration Court was to see that the latter keeps within its jurisdiction. In this case he submitted that the Court kept within its jurisdiction, and that the Supreme Court could not interfere. The matter being an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Arbitration Act that Court could deal with it in any manner it thought fit, immune from interference by any other Court. The Court reserved decision.