The Dominion TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1920. MINERS’ UNIONS AND THE LAW

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 246, 12 July 1921, Page 4

The Dominion TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1920. MINERS’ UNIONS AND THE LAW

When representatives of the employers and workers in the coal industry of the Dominion met in conference a month or two ago to discuss demands submitted hv the Miners’ Federation, they were unable even to approach agreement. In the circumstances, the mine owners seem to have taken the course best calculated to clear up the situation when they cited the miners unions in various districts to appear before the Arbitration Court. The most important function of the Court is to settle disputes which the parties concerned_aye unable to settle in direct negotiation or in conciliation proceedings. Instead of accepting this means of ending a deadlock, however, the delegates to the annual conference of the Miners’ Federation have passed the following resolution: —

That this conference now decides that under no consideration whatever will the Arbitration. Court be recognised. This uncompromising declaration reads strangely in face of the; fact that nearly all the coal miners' unions in the Dominion arc registered under the Arbitration Act. Not only so, but the. official representatives of the miners have not hesitated, when it suited their purpose, to assert their rights under the Arbitration Act. For instance, when the mine owners during the negotiations which preceded the last conference urged that it was useless to discuss the extravagant demands submitted on behalf of the miners, the secretary of the Miners’ Federation (Mb. J. Arbuckle) argued that if the federation had. filed ’ls claims in the Arbitration Court, the owners would have had to meet it. It may reasonablj’ he asked whv the miners' unions, or most of them, are registered under the Arbitration Act if they are determined, as their delegates assert, not to recognise the Arbitration Court under any consideration. The only apparent explanation is that the miners are desirous of securing all the benefits of registration under the Arbitration Act while they repudiate the obligations entailed—particularly the obligation of submitting to the decision, of an impartial tribunal any dispute with their employers it is found impossible to settle by voluntary agreement. Exactly what is to follow on the resolution of the federation conference is not clear, but it is certainly neither right nor just that an industrial union or group of unions, any more than an individual, should be allowed to claim -the privileges and protection afforded by a law they refuse to recognise. An industrial organisation which refuses to recognise the law and legal machinery provided by the State for the just and orderly settlement of disputes, obviously forfeits its own right to recognition. It has still to lie seen whether the various miners’ unions will endorse the attitude taken up by the. federation conference, but any that do- so certainly . ought to be denied further recognition under that law or further participation in the special privileges it offers to those who invoke it. One of these privileges, and not the least important, is preference to unionists. Although the miners’ unions have not for years worked under awards of the Arbitration Court, their registration under the Arbitration Act has no doubt been of much assistance in enabling them to secure preference of employment for their members. It would be both ridiculous and unjust to permit the retention of this privilege by any union which refuses to recognise the Arbitration Court.

Compulsory preference to unionists is a privilege extended not to individual workers, but to unions. In practice it involves compulsory membershlip of unions, .and so gives these bodies an assured and readymade standing which very often is anything but favourable to their sound growth and development. It is notorious that with preference in vogue many unions are left, to be controlled by minorities whose aims and views are absolutely _at variance with those of the majority of members. In these circumstances many workers, no doubt, will sympathise with tl>h proposal to be raised at the forthcoming Dominion Conference of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, when five of its district organisations will submit remits suggesting to the Government the desirability of abolishing the principle of comnulsory nreferonce to unionists. It is beyond question that for wage-earners generally the abolition of compulsory preference would be an act of emancipation. It, would make for Irdtev industrial relationshins and benefit all concerned, with the possible exception of those who find in compulsory unionism a convenient groundwork for the domination •if workers who would otherwise refuse to belong to unions dominated by extremists In any case, there ’’s no doubt that it would, be absolutely wrong to allow unions which repudiate and refuse to recognise the industrial law operating in this country to secure preference of employment for their members. _ .As the industrial laws of the Dominion are framed, they afford the widest possible latitude to unions of wageearners —much wider latitude, indeed, than they extend to employers. Miners’ unions registered under the Arbitral’on Act are of course, legally liable to be cited before the Arbitration Court, nnd ns long as t-hev continue to exist will be bound bv any. awards, it tnalreg in their respective districts. If they caned thdr registration th” awards, mad” by the Court will dill operate for their allotted period.