THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1937 STAY-IN TACTICS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22627, 15 January 1937, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1937 STAY-IN TACTICS

The freezing works employees, who, paid off because of go-slow tactics, have established themselves in the works, have introduced tactics new to labour disputes in New Zealand. The idea has, of course, been taken from the French strikers who, in the wave of labour disputes that occurred at the end of May last and the beginning of June, occupied factories and shops in many places. More recent instances have been the stay-in strikes of motor works employees in the United States. The resemblances between these examples and what is happening in or near Auckland are many, but ; there are also important differences. When the French strikes which greeted M. Blum's entry into office began, there were comparisons between them and various other cases in which premises had been occupied, notably the numerous i strikes experienced in Italy just before Mussolini's march on Rome. Here again there were differences. In the earlier instances the aim was revolutionary. The true objective was to seize the factories and plant. This was not so with the French workers. They struck on definitely industrial grounds, demanding higher wages, shorter hours, paid holidays and similar concessions. In the beginning, especially when the great metallurgical industries were concerned, strict discipline was enforced by the strike leaders, and the factories and plant were carefully guarded. Similarly in the United States the motor factory employees were, and still are, seeking industrial concessions. The French example was followed, and there was nothing political in the objectives. As there were these differences from the earlier, especially Italian, examples, so there are differences between what has happened in France and the United States and what is happening in New Zealand.

The freezing works employees are not on strike. In essence there may be little difference between striking and adopting go-slow tactics, but the men did not themselves cease work. They threw out a challenge to the employers, who responded by paying off the men who had slowed down their pace. The latter then remained in the buildings where they had been employed. There is the first difference. Then the French strikers, especially those in the metal industries, were pressing demands which had had no hearing. Besides higher wages and shorter hours, they included the right of collective bargaining among the concessions they made a condition of resuming normal work. In other words, the French strikers wanted an award and the machinery for making it effective and obtaining other awards later. They also felt the need of a tribunal to consider the issues, for when the Government intervened, seeking a settlement, it undertook to act as arbiter between employers and employees. The freezing workers have had their demands considered and pronounced upon by a legallyappointed tribunal. They have been granted an award by due process of law, and it is against the terms of this award that the go-slow tactics were adopted. So much has been frankly and officially admitted on their behalf. That is to say—and the point demands emphasis—while the French workers were seeking what in this country would be called an award, the freezing works employees here are endeavouring to go beyond the award they have been given by recognised processes,

The attitude which has been adopted has direct political consequences. One of the planks in the platform of the present Government, when it appealed to the electors, was the restoration of the Arbitration Court to the position it had occupied before the amendment of recent years. That promise has been fulfilled. Its powers to make awards, to pronounce with presumed authority on all disputes passed on- to it after conciliation proceedings have been tried, have been re-embodied in the law. But the arbitration system will suffer far worse than it has from any past legislation if the parties to a dispute simply refuse to be bound by the terms of its decisions. I3y following such a course the freezing workers have challenged the Government and its strongly-affirmed faith in the Arbitration Court as the essential machine for settling disputes and pronouncing judicially [ upon the wages and conditions of labour. Thie Minister of Labour has taken up the challenge. Indeed, he puts the position even more strongly when he says the issue is, who is to govern in New Zealand. There is substance in this view, and his attitude is thoroughly justified, for observance of the law—industrial law—is certainly vitally affected. The authority of the Government is involved also, since by the restoring amendment enacted last session the Arbitration Act become 3 its law, the Arbitration Court a tribunal stamped with the sign of its endorsement. The Government arid the unions involved must thus settle this matter between them. They must do it quickly, for vital export industries are held up and the interests of the farmers are in jeopardy while the employees occupy the freezing works.