Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17504, 21 December 1918, Page 6

THE TRAMWAYS DISPUTE. The members of the Tramways Industrial Union of Workers decided yesterday by a very substantial majority in favour of a strike. Whether this vote represents more than a demonstration against the existing conditions of their employment is a point which may possibly furnish the cause of some speculation. Bat it is specially to be observed that the result of the vote does not exclude the possibility of a settlement without recourse to extreme steps. The Labour Disputes Investigation Act, in terms of which the ballot was taken, does not contain any provision expressly declaring that it is to be read in conjunction with the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1908. Legal opinion apparently, however, supports the view that the two Acts- must be read together to the extent to which they relate to the occurrence of strikes. At any rate it is realised that it would be unsafe for any workers who decide by a ballot under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act in favour of a strike to ignore the clause in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act prescribing special penalties in the event of the conviction of workers in certain specified industries—among them, working of any used for the public carriage of

passengers—on a charge of having struck without duo notice. The clause to which we refer provides that if any person employed in any of the specified industries strikes without having given to his employer, within one month before so striking, not less than fourteen days' notice in writing, signed by hiin, of his intention to strike, or strikes beforo th© expiry of any notice so given by him, the striker shall be liable on sumnfary conviction before a magistrate to a fine not exceeding £25. This seems to mean that if th© decision which was arrived at yesterday iu favour of a Jftrike is to bo carried into effect the .strike cannot legally bo begun until after the lapso of a month and that the onus is now thrown upon each member of the Tramways Union who supports a strike to give fourteen days' notice within that month of his intention to strike. Upon this construction of the law an interval of at least a month, admitting of the resumption of negotiations on th© part of th© union, is provided before there can be any strike. The opportunity thus afforded for a further effort to arrive at an amicable settlement is not one that should be lightly disregarded. We have no doubt that, despite th© ugly threat of a strike, the offer of th© City Corporation remains open for consideration by the employees, and we are not pre- . pared to assume that a modification of somo of the conditions of service that are tli© subject of complaint is not practicable upon a dispassionate examirta- [ tion of the whole question. It seems certainly desirable that there should be another conference over the matters in dispute. But if the negotiations are reopened, th© representatives of the parties should not go to a conference in a spirit of determination to yield no ground whatever. When a dispute has reached the stag© to which the union has carried this one, a settlement is retarded, rather than promoted, by a stubborn refusal on either side to make any concessions.