“TO PREVENT STRIKES”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7399, 29 March 1911, Page 6

“TO PREVENT STRIKES”

.Wo aro not at all surprised that the “ strike clauses ” inserted by the Arbitration Court in the Wellington, shear-ing-shed hands dispute are objected to by , unionists. The clauses ate hot altogether now, being, practically identical with provisions introduced by the Court in September, 1908, into an award concerning the sawmilling industry in Southland; Their cruXds that in order to emphasise the very proper view that the union must oxeroiae all its power and.influence to prevent members striking, the Court lays down the .extreme injunction that “ if any strike shall occur in which any members of the union shall take part, such strike shall be prima facie evidence that the union has committed a breach of its duty,” and the result shall bo the suspension of the award and reversion to freedom of contract as between individual employers and employees. It had! to be admitted two and a half years ago, when, as we say, this rather quaint device “to prevent strikes” originated, that there had occurred a number of instances of quite impudent disregard of legal and moral obligations by members of unions i registered under the Arbitration Act. There .had, indeed, been oases where unions had practically claimed tho privilege of holding employers rigidly to awards, so far as it suited them to do so, and at the same time being themselves free to disregard the authority of the Court and revert to the strike method at will. Of course, this could not be permanently .tolerated, and it was clear that something had to he done to enforce obedience to the law by all who chose to bring themselves under it. But when the Southland award was mode, wo. at once, while presuming that tho Court was keeping within tho confines of the statute, urged that this attempt to deter strikes was likely to have the opposite effect, suggested that Parliament was the proper authority to penalise disobedients, and asked ‘What is the Legislature going'to do about it?” That question- received a complete answer during tho following month, when the Arbitration Act was amended, strikes and lock-outs being defined and many now and substantial penalties provided. Among tho oonse-

quenoes of a strike were included suspension of any award under which strikers had been working, with the additional disqualification of cancellation of the union’s registration. But in the clauses defining the legal meaning of the word “ strike” it was provided that “ wheu a strike or, look-out takes place, and a majority of tho members of any industrial union or industrial association are at any time , parties to the strike or lock-out, the said union or association shall bo deemed to have instigated -the strike or lock-out.” It seems obvious from this that Parliament had specifically in its mind the Arbitration Court’s Southland strike clauses, for one portion of them, making an award inoperative as tho result of a strike, was adopted, and now stands part of the law; but tho Court’s method of settling the responsibility for a strike was rejected. The Court had said a strike by “ any members -of tho union.” should he prima facie evidence of offence; Parliament said, in effect: “No; before a union may be punished it must be proved that a majority of its members have offended.” It is therefore a little strange to find tho Court reviving what the Legislature seems to have set aside. The Arbitration Act is a measure of grave importance, and comprises severe methods of dealing with . persons responsible either for strikes or lock-outs. The Act, in our view, is beneficial to the community, and lias contributed largely to maintaining the industrial tranquillity that has followed its enactment. That is because it insists upon both parties to awards observing tho conditions laid down, and because rea-' sonable precautions are taken to see that the persons responsible for mischief, shall ho selected for punishment.' The “ strike clauses” now reintroduced by the Arbitration Court do not .appear to us to ensure this. Because two or three men at, say, Bongaroa quarrelled with their employer and refused to work that would be no valid' justification for tearing up ah award operating throughout the whole industrial district, and possibly holding up tho shearing of sheep at every station in that area. Have wo to ask "again, "What is the Legislature going to do about these strike clauses? They seem to be merely provocative innovations, of no protection to employers.