Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, I suppose in time we shall realise what this detestable preference to unionists involves. day's Herald contains a few items from Ohristchuroh, one of which is that a baker is summoned before the Arbitration Court for an alleged breach of frhe award because he did not immediately dismiss an employes who was not a unionist, bo the unions claim that as soon as an award is made giving preference to unionists all non-unionists must be immediately dismissed. What are they to do ? They can either join the union or starve. Two employers were fined for employing non-unionists. Ido not know if the evidence proved that there were unionists of equal capacity unemployed at the time; the bare fact stated is that the crime of which the employers were convicted was " that they employed non-unionists." Another charge was that an employer had engaged a non-unionist while unionists were out of employment. It is also becoming the rule now when an award docs not suit the unions to deputationise the Premier on the subject, and I regret to see that the Premier so far forgets himself as to express his opinion that the Court ought not to have done as it did, and in /effect he promises the deputation to look into the matter, and see that things are done differently in future. The appalling impudence of such a proceeding on the part of the Premier is almost inconceivable. That lie should dictate to our judges his wishes in the matter of their decisions—that ho should attempt in the smallest degree to weaken our absolute trust in their justice, and in the fearless manner in which they give their decisions— a crime.

Judges must be maintained in their place, which is above any interference by any man, bo ho Premier or King, or all confidence in their decisions must necessarily bo weakened, and veiled threats coming from one so high in position as Mr. Seddon is a pitiful sight, especially .when made only to placate a deputation who have votes.—l am, etc., 91, Queen-street, May 8. J. Thornes.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19030513.2.65.3

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12269, 13 May 1903, Page 6

Word Count
353

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12269, 13 May 1903, Page 6

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12269, 13 May 1903, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert