Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER st., 1934. RIGHT TO WORK.

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 September 1934, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER st., 1934. RIGHT TO WORK.

yiiE question of* the right of a trade union to refuse membership to an applicant lends itself to difference of opinion, as was evidenced in the Appeal Court, yesterday, at Wellington, when two of the Judges look one view and the other Judge, a contrary. The reasons given in each instance appeared sound, and it may be that the particular issue will be taken to a still higher Court. In any case, there seems to be room for legislative action to safeguard all parties concerned in upholding industrial rights. Tn theory, it is reasonable that a trade union should have 11150 right to refuse membership 1o any applicant not deemed suitable, and were it possible to guarantee that such decision would always be ma.de on the .merits of the applicant with reference to his capability to do the work required, and his personal character being good, there would be no more to say, and serious controversy would not arise. In practice. however, it is possible, under the present regulations, for grave injury and injustice to be done to one who is not persona grata to ' a union executive, either through I I his political views, his apathy ( ; •11 where the union wants enthusiasm, I or through personal differences • j

with one or more members of the

executive. Bj t some unions, the lot of such a man could be made unbearable. It is a clear duty of the State to safeguard individual interests as well as collective.

Without making any comment on the merits of the Hargreaves v. Wellington Waterside Union dispute, it may be said that a watersiders’ union, —like two or three others, —has special facilities to prevent men working on the wharves, and this power can be misused. Most of the men thus objected to by a union executive would passive].y accept the decision, and surrender what rights they had. Others with greater courage, or determination, would be less submissive, but in most instances the union’s will would prevail. In the interests of watersiders, generally, more safeguards are desirable. The favoured' of the union to-day, may be the unwanted, tomorrow. Might should not be peririittcd to overcome right, in these matters. If Australia' finds it desirable to have legislation preventing injustice by unions, New Zealand could not be very wrong in following .the example. Unions oppose the right to lock-out by employers, but seek to have a similar power themselves, because it cannot be doubted that exclusion of a man from a waterside union means' in practice that he is barred from employment on the wharves. The issue is not one that concerns the union and would-be members alone. The employers should

not be made willy-nilly partners in procedure that prevents competent and well-behaved men working for them, and particularly so, if the union’s objection arises because it regards such men as too good workers. The nation generally, in its desire for a fair deal to all, would not agree to a system of preference of employment being made ground for monopoly and dictatorship by any one section. It would be interesting to know the number of men refused union membership and why. Meanwhile, the Appeal Court’s decision has forced the question on the notice of the Government, union, and employers. Were goodwill to prevail, a workable compromise would soon be found. If negotiations with that aim fail, it will be the duty of the Government to introduce regulations safeguarding every man’s right to work, if such work is available, and he is capable of carrying out his part of the contract. Honest-minded unionists and democrats must surely find no objection to that principle.