WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14. 1906.

Nelson Evening Mail, 14 March 1906, Page 2

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14. 1906.

trade unions and labour politicians in the recently constituted House of Commons are likely to differ from the Govornment if the latter permit the. law as defined by legal rulings and Royal Commission findings to remain unaltered,. The essential value of a strike is its sud denness, for where notice is given and , contracts are completed the employer i has time to search for and secure free. I labour. Then, without interference with that free labour, a strike would be futile. In the Taff Vale strike there was much violence by the picketters, who numbered 1200, and it was proved in evidence that the "blacklegs" were not beaten with feathers.. In that respect, the Commission proposes that the essence. of offence should be causing reasonable apprehension of violence. In short, the majority report suggests scarcely any serious alteration of the law protecting employers and society generally against reckless strike warfare, and thus the findings are not likely to square with the Labour conception of reform. The question how the Liberal Government in Great Britain will propose to amend the law is now invested with additional interest. The situation (says the "Sydney Daily Telegraph") seems to contain the elements of a big party struggle,

.'ABILITIES OF TRADES UNIONS, THE TAFF VA'LE DECISION. A CABLEGRAM from Australia this week records the faet that the famous ,Taff Vale judgment in England relating to the ljmitaf.ion of the prerogatives of trade' unions had governed the decision of tho Court of Apppa| iu upholding damages awarded to a non-unionist who had been doprivod of work owing to the action of a trade union. To onable the general reader to understand the issues involved a review of the main details and general spirit of tho Taff Vale decision may prove of interest. The basic issue involved in the Taff Vale case was whether a trade union not being a corporation can be sued and its funds madii liable {or fho acts of its officers. The prevailing impression bad been that it was not amenable, but when, in 1901, the Taff Y»l« Railway Co. sued the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants and their officials, for damages sustained in consequence of. a conspiracy in the form of an unlawful strike, the House of Lords, after various decisions had been given, read the law the other way. "A thing which can own property, employ servants, and inflict injury,'' sajd tJie Lgrd Chancellor (the other Lords con'currinjj), 'musf. be taken ajgo to be jjueable for iiijuries'purposely done by its authority and procurement." ji # « • t Tho Impei'ial Royal Commission on Trades Disputes which has sent in its report upholds tho intorprotation put upon the law by the Houso of Lords from the point of view of both law and justice, and the extended liability of trade unions is now an accepted base whereon legal proceedings may be found, ed. Commenting on the righteousness of fljg decision, the Sydney "Daily Telegraph" sayo jt js clear that any othei finding would mean f,ha£ ft'rong being sanctioned, lhe contrary argument only amounts to this, that a number of persons can come together and d.O, under the mere figment of a name, what would j'ffflder them liable to damages if theydirt if- ai individuals. • # # « '"if * Until about thirty years ago tradeunionism in Great Britain wns undei the ban of statutes which practically prohibited, workmen's combinations. The Acts passed between 1871 and 1876 removu.d various hindrances, and even went so far a.s fjj legalise strikes if lawfully conducted. "Bal, j.jmulj,anoously it was assumed that this conces»io^ also gave td the trade unions immunity from responsibility for the doings of its members, acting essentially as tradeunionists in the interests of the union. This notion >yas exploded by the Tafl Vale strike decMaji, and, the trade union was cast in dama^ea upon {jje jury finding its officials guilty of molesting and Injuring the railway company ; unlawfully persuading men to break their contracts ; and assiuting to carry out a strike bjr unlawful means. Ths finding in the Irish case, Quinn v. Leathern, in the same year, "filled up all the holes left in the Taff Vale case," as was aptly remarked, by declaring it illegal to conspire to injure a person by inducing his customers or servant* tg break their contracts with him, or not to contract with Mm, deal with him, or continue in his employment. This is the issue on which the Austi-alian case of damages awarded to a non-unionist has been upheld, I Summed up, the position is as follows : A trade union is civilly liable, and although a strike may bo legalised there are unlawful methods of conducting it. The majority of the Royal Commission affirms tlmt there is no more reason why i trade-unionß should be beyond the reach of the law than other individuals oi i bodies. The question has arisen, however, whether the provident funds of a union should not be made unattachable. The answer of the Royal Commission is that they should, if they can be isolated from the fighting funds. Where the union movement is largely a political one, it is difficult to discover where the campaign and strike funds end and the provident, fund begins— aij anomaly that has often arisen in Australia. That dif|ficulty is likely to present itself in Great Britain, now that a parliamentary Labour party -has been formally organised; in fact, some anions have already revolted against the use of the funds for political purposes. The Commission's recommendation of statutory separation of the funds indicates about the best settlement — again, provided it can be dona. Otherwise the majority proposes only one eorious departure from the law, as defined in the two cases that have been mentioned. That is in advising legislation protecting the central union authorities against "unauthorised and immediately disavowed actions by branch agents. . It is worth noting that under the rul- I mg decisions as affecting trade unions and strikes in the'Unitod Kfngdpm the Royal Commission proposes to legalise strikes only aa. "apart from crime dr breach of contract.' 1 By this means the excessive prohibition laid down in the Irish case is removed and the law is left much as it is, mth the reaffirmation , V he finding in the Taff Vale case where, Mr Justice Wills said, what v/ls ' contemplated "was not.a mere strike, ' but a strike complicated with breach of ' contract. Thp is tho point frpm which I