WAIHI LABOUR DISPUTE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4305, 14 March 1901, Page 4

WAIHI LABOUR DISPUTE.

The labour dispute at Waihi, widen threatened in its initiatory stages to assume the bad/old form of industrial warfare, arid came very near placing a sever© strain upon the; most beneficent of our labour laws, luas happily got past the ScylLV of angry , toeimg and the Charybdis of coercion, and reached the comparatively smooth waters -of l fdimal proceedings under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It was no fault of Mr Barry, the Waihi mine in onager, that a -conflict on the ‘‘strike and “look-out” principle did not take plage; alid it is entirely clue to tlie tact and persuasiveness of Mr Tregcar, the official head of the Labour Department, that wiser counsels have prevailed. Mr Barry'was within the four corners of the statute in his action; hut his course was hue that was calculated to provoke reprisals, and if the Miners’ Union had ordered a strike, there would have been deplorable results to the Waihi shareholders and a sad blow would have been given no the principle of industrial arbitration. Ilf getting from the manager ah undertaking to reinstate two of the discharged men, Mr Trogear achieved a great moral victory. The promise to take any of the men back was virtually ■an admission on the manager’s part that ho had done wrong to dismiss the men at all. It is a practical confession that lie had dismissed tlie, men; not for bad work, which would have put them in the wrong, but for something not connected with their work at all, with regard to which they were in the right. There was hardly any need for a confession, because, cn the face of the case, the men were innocent of anything except official unionism, which is - well- within the law. Men of good character, grown grey in the service, are never sent away at ampment's notice with the bald explanation that they arc “unsuitable." Tlie admission of Mr Barry is valuable, therefore, as showing how completely in the wrong lie was, and may bo valuable iri getting from him in the future bettor respect for a principle which every employer of enlightened tendencies lias Irng ago accepted.- :

A question' is raided about the Wages demanded by the men, and the terms. Now, at the very outset it is ; bvious that, the lime has not come for the public discussion of tlnr-''question. At present it ;s. waiting for the . conE'.ueration of the authority to which appeal' has been .made.. When the case ti mes, before, the. Conciliation -Board the public will bo supplied with the fullest information', for the publicity of the proceedings and their judicial character are strong points of the much discussed law. For the present, it is enough to note that the standard of wages demanded at .Waihi by the men is actually less than the rate established by the Arbitration Court at Reefton. The cost of living is a factor in these matters, of course. Opinions differ, it is well understood, as to whether this is higher at one or other of the two places named. Waihi lias steam, rail and road, while Beef ton has steam and rail only. If carriage were the only factor, the rate of living would be less at Reefton. If that be the case, then the rate of wages asked for by the Waihi men for work in the richest mine in. New Zealand is more modest than appears on the surface. It thus appears that though the demand is for 20 per cent, more than the present Waihi rate, it, nevertheless, fails to reach the Reefton u&te. But all this only adds to the in-| tteiest of the proceedings which are

' :&■*&&&& about to commence before the' Board of Conciliation at Waihi. The company’s manager did bis best to put an end to the possibility of these pioceedings, by offering terms on condition that the men “dropped” their demand. The men have indignantly, almost unanimously, and very properly, rejected this very unwarrantable offer. The offer is riot, only a bribe, it is also a strong proof of the need for such legislation as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. But more has been proved by Mr Barry than the need for the Act. It was bad enough to play off the livelihood of .one set of men against the rights of all to ask for a. better living; but it was pvorso to break the intention of the law by dismissing the union officials before their demands could be filed. Tin* manager Ims shown by his action, very forcibly, that the Act does not protect the employees, as well as. it protects employers. With the former a strike is | always illegal, but with the latter a lock-out. (and this action of Mr Barry’s was virtually a lock-out) is permissible between the notification of a claim and its tiling in the Court. This is an inequality that ought to be removed by the Legislature. Mr Barry’s action has proved that the necessity for an amendment, which shall bring all parlies into line before the law, is imperative. Nothing but the good sense and moderation of the miners, coupled with their absolute confidence in the machinery provided by statute, prevented an open rupture, before the Government had time to interpose its friendly offices.. It is gratifying to look hack on tills aspect o p Hie dispute; but it. is not so pleasant, to contemplate the fact that, the “coun- ! try without strikes” lias had a narrow escape from involvement in embittered industrial warfare on the effete lines that prevail elsewhere. The friends of conciliation will not, breathe freely until the law is so altered, that no obstinate employer shall be able, by taking advantage of ai technical weakness, to precipi. tate n. “strike” of workmen.