Evening Post. SATURDAY, MAY 23, 1908.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 122, 23 May 1908, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, MAY 23, 1908.

ARBITRATION AUNT SALLY. In connection, with the Auckland strike, the Government has an interesting opportunity to show in some measure how sincere are its professions of devotion to the Arbitration law — "which will be upheld at all costs" (as long as the costs are not inconveniently high). There are said to be on strike at Auckland about 250 members of the Tramways Union, and possibly a score or more of firemen and others, not members of the union. The Arbitration Court is to sit at Auckland on Monday, when presumably an Inspector of Awards, by direction of the Minister for Labour, will report the strike and ask for the imposition of a penalty for the legal offence. The Minister may proceed in either of two ways for the enforcement of law ; he may proceed against the Tramways Union, or he may proceed against the members of the union individually. The Act apparently leaves him free to proceed against both — union first and members afterwards, or members first and union afterwards ; and' this course is justifiable, because the union's is an official responsibility apart from the personal responsibility of its members. Further, the Act appears to contemplate this course, for the limit of the penalty that can be applied to a union is a fine of £100 — which, of course, is a bagatelle in the case of a sfirious strike, and merely served to mark the status of the union in the eye of the 'law, liut we have argued, and the Minister has accepted the argument, that it is better in the present state of the law and of opinion to avoid drawing a distinction that might result in an appearance of prosecuting the same culprits twice for tho same offence. Consequent.ly the Minister's choice is as stated. How important the choice is may bo seen by a comparison of the results that lmvo previously followed its application. In the Canterbury slaughtermen's east;», tho Minister pursued the individual strikers, and caught, them. Until it was made evident that tho Labour Department did not intend to press the matter home, .the Minister gave those strikers real annoyance ; and^ the Arbitration Court, m fining many of them £5 each, applied a real penalty — which, of coarse, was what Parliament intended. It is true that many of the fines have not been collected ; "But that is the fault of the lax administration of the Labour Department, with an unwinking eye apparently less open to the validity of tho law and tho authority of tho court than to the pitiful case of men who have struck against law and court with a sporting recklessness of consequences. Still, some of the fines truly were collected,; and tho process of collection m some cases was quite- unpleasant enough to make tlio men think twice before they struck again. In the Blackball case, the Minister prosecuted tho union ; with the result that tho union fpnds, if there were- 1 any, disappeared suddenly, and ( the bailiff returned his warrant endorsed "Nulla bona." Now tho Minister is prosecuting some 150 members of tho Blackball union for their shares of the fine of £75 decreed by the Arbitration Oouit; and no doubt — if t.he MinisLti 1 ' d>CC& Hut Partly f n ] y\^ j^ l-^ii c^prr nnr^ j

if the Labour Department does not compromise the matter, and if nobody savea tho Government trouble by subscribing tho fine anonymously — those shares, ov some of them, will in the end be collected. Meanwhile, tho Blackball unionists have had an enjoyable holiday, with friendly subscriptions to keep them, going ; they have walked 'jn miners' boots over the Government, the court, and the law ; and their strike, in a word, has been a- great success. The Minister for Labour, offering to mediate, was promptly told to go to Invercargill or elsewhere ; and the relevance of the advice was obvious, because strikers do not want mediation if they can get everything else they want. The Auckland strike follows promptly upon Blackball ; and mo doubt other unions are meditating a shy at the Arbitration Aunt Sally. Why not? Even if the Blackball fine is by-and-by collected, it will mean lese than a sovereign a head to the strikers. What is a sovereign to men earning up to £6 and £7 a/ .week? Why, the pleasure of "putting the Minister in his place" is worth the money.

Readers will now appreciate how important is the choice which the Minister for Labour may make in the case of the Auckland strike. If he prosecutes the union, he rqally takes the matter out of tho hands of tho Arbitration Court and fixes tho penalty himself ; because the court cannot put the fine higher than £100. A fine of £100, divided among 250 members, means about one day's pay per man ; so that if the Minister prosecutes the union he will fix a definite tariff for going on strike — one day's pay or less. Strikes will be cheap at the price ; and there should be many more purchasers who, having sucked the orange of tho Arbitration Act,, aro now ready to throw away the rind. If the Minister, on tho other hand, decides to prosecute- the strikers individually, the court will have some real power in the matter; and should it choose to give effect to the intention of Parliament, and to award the substantial fine of up to £10 per head which is provided by tho Act, the law will scarcely look so much like a scarecrow. The choice rests with the ' Minister for Laboui. If he prosecutes the Auckland union, it will be time to end the farce of compulsory arbitration, or to seek a Government that will exercise the compulsion.