THE PRESS MONDAY, MAY 23, 1977. Socialism and rights

Press, 23 May 1977, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, MAY 23, 1977. Socialism and rights

“ Democratic socialism,” said the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Mr Rowling, last week. “ is in the business of protecting the rights of the individual. Why should anyone fear that? ” Mr Rowling was discussing the debate in his party’s conference which spent, quite reasonably, some time trying to define the nature of its socialist ideals. He saw the State’s role as that of protecting people, at least in the role of a referee and “frequently more than that.”

Why, indeed, should anyone fear such an idea? The whole business of law, regardless of whether it is to be interpreted according to socialist ideals, is in protecting people from each other’s actions when necessary, and protecting the whole community’s interests from individual interests when a greater communal purpose is defined and endorsed by the legislature. The other side of the legal coin is the business of protecting the individual from oppressive or unjust actions by the State itself, or from organisations within the community that accumulate power over the individual. The State must provide that kind of protection, too.

Mr Rowling had hardly spoken when the Federation of Labour announced its disapproval of a fine levied by the Supreme Court on the Tramway Workers’ Union for contempt of court. This fine was ordered when the court held that the union had breached an injunction sought and obtained by an individual citizen who proved himself to be injured by a union stoppage.

The injunction was obviously an embarrassment to all concerned in industrial negotiations on the bus drivers’ award. Here was another instance of what many trade union members regard as interference with their right to strike. Here was a clash between the rights of the individual, protected by the law of the State, and the rights of an organisation that can

injure people who are not parties to a dispute between workers and their employers. In 1974, Mr Watt, who was then Minister of Labour, and Dr Finlay, then Attorney-General, declined to support a view that unions, or any section of the community, might put themselves beyond the law. Speaking at the Labour Party conference that year, Dr Finlay said that he would have to part from the Labour movement if it ever set any organisation above or beyond the law. The conference, however, voted strongly in favour of amending the Industrial Relations Act to protect unions from injunctions during disputes. Dr Finlay’s answer was to suggest that in hearings on industrial matters a public representative might be appointed to put to the court a wider view of the repercussions of industrial action. He had in mind, not the withdrawal of labour by a union, but the denying of services that were ordinarily supplied. The distinction seemed slender, though it was pertinent at the time because a union had stopped supplying sendees to a particular company. Protecting the rights of the individual. and maintaining the rights that an industrial union may claim on behalf of workers —or employers — is no easy matter: though the union movement does not seem to be concerned about the possibility that a court injunction might be sought against an employer, perhaps to the great advantage of employees. The solution may well lie in framing industrial law to comprehend some right of the individual, or his representative, to protect himself from the effects of industrial disputes. Since it is in the business of protecting the individual, the Labour movement might well come up with a workable solution. In the meantime, elements within the movement cannot conscientiously put themselves outside the law as it stands.