UNION FUNDS AND POLITICS

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26199, 24 August 1950, Page 6

UNION FUNDS AND POLITICS

TRADES COUNCIL VIEWS

“LEGISLATION DESPOTIC AND DISCRIMINATORY”

“The only conclusion We can draw from the proposals in the Political Disabilities Removal Amendment Bill is that they are despotic arid discriminatory,” said a statement issued yesterday by the Canterbury Trades Court-' cil of the Federation of Labour. The council, the statement said, sent on August 4 a telegram to the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) emphatically protesting against the bill. The message said that the bill savoured of discrimination and the council requested that'it be referred to the L.abour Bills Committee of the House of Representatives in order that evidence might be taken from the parties concerned. This action was sought “to remove the charge of dictatorship and in the interests of true democracy.” “This was a modest request, indeed.” said the council. “The Prime Minister appears to live in feat- of his real intentions being publicised. On August 16 he rejected our request and stated that the 1936 and 1948 legislation was not referred to the Labour Bills Committee. Of course, not! Who would ask for an investigation of a bill providing for implementation of plain, pure, unadulterated British democracy? Mr Holland need be afraid; perhaps he would have to explain why he refrained from voting against clause 4 of the 1936 legislation, when a division was called for that purpose. “When Mr Hollands party was m power in 1932 (at that time under a different pseudonym) it bound, hand and foot, and ip a most vicious manner, all public servants to absolutely no public political expression. In the same act—the Finance Act, 1932—that

Government extended its own life by two years. The Labour Party fought these measures, and when elected in 1935 it implemented its policy and removed political disabilities. Act of 1936 "Clause 4 of the 1936 act stated:—(l) subject to the provisions of this section, the funds of any society may be applied to the furtherance of political objects if a majority of the members of the society so decide by a resolution for the time being in force, passed on a ballot of the members of the society, taken in accordance with the rules of the society; (2) any such resolution may at any time be revoked by a subsequent resolution passed in the same manner as such first-mentioned resolution was passed; (3) the provisions of this section shall apoly to any society notwithstanding that there is no provision in the rules of the society authorising the use of its funds for the furtherance of political beliefs; in the definitions ‘society’ included trade unions. >

“Not until 1948 was it discovered that there was a minor flaw, with major implications, in Clause 4, subclause 1 of that act,” said the council. “Not until then did anyone dream that the intentions of the act could be stated as not being those of the clarifying 1948 amendment. When the position was tested in 1948. the Labour Government left nobody in doubt regarding its original democratic intentions, hence the 1948 amendment. The effect was to make decisions of unions legal if carried by a majority of valid votes cast instead of insisting on a favourable majority of all eligible voters.

“Thinking he can blame the Labour Government for an apparent undemocratic action against itself, and at the same time implementing his own party’s anti-worker, trade union-weak-ening policy, Mr Holland intends to revert to the legalists’ interpretation of the 1936 act. Mr Holland believes that, if trade unionists (and only trade unionists in affairs) dp not vote on a given proposal, then their votes should be recorded against the issue.”