Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1908. THE AUCKLAND STRIKE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 121, 22 May 1908, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1908. THE AUCKLAND STRIKE.

Tn considering yesterday, as far as our space and tho time permitted, the strike of members of tho Auckland Tramways Union, wo presented tho men's side of the case to the extent of the information then available. As tho union, by striking, h'us committed a breach of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration laws, we desired, if possible, to understand its reasons and to give due weight to tho grievances which it alleges. In any industrial conflict between labourers and employers, the labourers are entitled to the most sympathetic scrutiny of their pleas, for the reason that, lacking as they usually do the reserved strength of capital, and dependent as they usually are upon the sale of their labour for their daily bread, they are economically the weaker side; and it is a chivalrous and reasonable and deeply-rooted instinct of human nature to give "the under dog" the most jealous fair-play that is permitted by the rules of the game. We are aware that some labour unions, placed by circumstances temporarily in control of an industry, are apt to use their pov?er tyrannically ; but that does not affect | tho right of these or other unions to tho fullest measure of justice, howe-ver it may alter the application of the stated principle. So we are slow to believe a labour union entirely in tho wrong, knowing how of ton the argument drawn from a superficial view of the circumstances of conflict fails to take account of radical evils underlying the ostensible grounds of dispute. In the case of the Auckland Tramways Union, the excuse which the men give for striking is that their employers committed a breach of the definite agreement which closed the previous strike in November, 1906. This agreement dons not appear to have been cancelled. But we find that to all intents and purposes it has been superseded by the award of the Arbitration Court in June of last year, which in clauses 10 and 11 makes the following provision regarding the tefrms of engagement of members of the .union •.— 10. A week's notice of dismissal or of resignation ehall be given by the employer or by the worker, but this shall not prevent the employer from dismissing any worker for good cause. This clause shall not apply to men on the spare list, who may resign or be dismissed at any time. 11. If any worker shall be dismissed by any officer other than the general manager of tho employer ■he shall ha.vo a right of appeal to the general manager from such dismissal, and to produce such evidence as ho shall think proper for tho consideration of the general manager. The latter clause is evidently intended in substitution of the clause in the 1906 agreement upon which the union relies ; and apparently it refers to the case of the. dismissed conductor upon whose account the men have struck. The text is worded obscurely; but a dismissal, according to the apposition in clause 10, means generally dismissal on the instant, without notice; though there may be a dismissal with notice, tf the statement of the conductor be correct, he was dismissed by a person other 'than the general manager, and. the general manager refused to hear his appeal or to permit him to produce evidence for consideration. Therefore the Tramways Company made a breach of clause 11 of the award. As that clause stands by itself, the gift of a week's wages in lieu of notice — which is not a substitution justified by the award — makes no difference to tho company's failure to preserve its obligation. Whether a week's notice or no notice of dismissal is given, the company is still bound by clause 11 to allow an appeal to the general manager from the act of his subordinate. This consideration of the merits of the case is not concerned witE the question of the culpability of the men in going' on strike. Any preliminary breach of ■the award by the company cannot be held to justify the graver breach of the law by the men. If the company has broken the award, the Arbitration Court is sole judge of tho matter, and theunion waa bound to refer its complaint to the Court. We can conceive circumstances in which a strike would be excusable. The recent stoppage v pf work in Christie's colliery, near Dunedin, might have offered such circumstances. If the mine workings had really been in a dangerous condition, the men might properly have refused to risk their livea by going to work. No such excuse can be given in the Auckland case. One man only was dismissed ; and the company haa undoubted power to dismiss any man, and can exercise its power in the manner provided by the award. If it did not comply with the terms of the award, we find that the men still acted arbitrarily in striking — thus setting what they conceive to bo their own interest above the authority of the Arbitration Court, and causing much public inconveni-' ence and loss. Such a strike is the very species of strike that the system of arbitration law was devised to prevent and oppose; and th© union is decidedly in the wrong.