UNIONS AND THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19502, 10 June 1925, Page 6

UNIONS AND THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM.

Thk dc-registration of the Australian Seamen’s Union, and the cancellation of tho awards affecting it under an order of tho Federal Arbitration Court, should not cause any surprise. For a long time past tho union, which has the benefit of tho guidance of Mr Tom Walsh as president, lias been “looking for trouble.” Its tactics, directed to the holding-up of shipping on a hundred and one pretexts, have amounted tr, a cynical flouting of the Federal Arbitration Court and have been inconsistent with the maintenance of its status as a union under tho arbitration law. Not content with the benefit derived from the awards applying to its various branches, the Seamen’s Union has sought to bo a law unto itself. The endeavour to bring it to book, instead of saving the country from the unfortunate effects of a succession of “irritation” strikes, served mainly to throw into relief the actual impotence of the Federal Arbitration Court in such circumstance. About two months ago the High Court made an order against the Seamen’s Union restraining it from encouraging its members to strike or refuse to accept employment in the service of the Australian Commonwealth Line because of the employment of certain men who had been suspended from membership of the union. When, however, the Commonwealth Line subsequently called for a crew for the Eromanga there was no response. Tho Eromanga had on board, it appears, six men who had been suspended from membership for having sailed on the maiden voyage of tho Commonwealth steamer Fordsdalo against tho orders of tho union. The contumacy of the union in face of the High Court’s ruling was carried further in the subsequent refusal to man tho steamer Dilga. The question of the deregistration of tho union and the termination of tho existing award was considered by the Arbitration Court as the outcome of applications to that end made by both the Commonwealth Shipping Board and the Commonwealth Steamship Owners’ Association. Mr Justice Webb, Dcputy-Fresident of the Court, was doubtful at first respecting the powers of tho Arbitration Court to de-register a recalcitrant union under the Arbitration Act, and the point was referred to the High Court before the proceedings were gone on with. The grounds, among others, upon which application was made for de-registration was that the union, its branches, and its officers bid committed breaches of the award and of the Act by striking, and had acted inconsistently with industrial peace and the orderly and efficient working of the shipping industry. Mr Justice Webb has expressed his regret at having to make the order of deregistration, which meant that “a fine body of Australian seamen, through the officers of their uuion, were being deprived of their status and the protection and awards of the court.” The position, he pointed out, is the faore to be deplored because nowhere in the world do tho seamen work under such favourable conditions as in Australia. Little gratitude, therefore, is due from the Australian seamen as a body to those who, under the pretext of advancing their interests, have forced them into supporting unconstitutional methods with a view to exerting pressure on their employers. Mr Justice Webb’s remarks on the susceptibility of the seamen to “foreign ideas” are to the point. The extent to which tho transport unions in Australia have become a happy hunting ground for the Communists has been tho subject of a good deal of comment. Mr Tom Walsh’s intimation that the Seamen's Union would not oppose de-registration may be taken as implying that the seamen’s organisation—at least under its present leadership—is quite content to sever its

relations with the Arbitration Court. It will be interesting to see whether that view has the endorsement of the rank and file of the union’s members, and it is not surprising to read that steps are being already taken to form a new seamen’s organisation by those who have no faith in the leadership of Mr Tom Walsh and his colleagues. Attention has been lately drawn in New Zealand to tho circumstance that several miners’ unions, through failure to supply their annual returns, have received notification that their registration will be cancelled unless they show cause to the contrary within the statutory period of grace allowed. In the latest issue of the Gazette the registration of one union is declared cancelled, four other unions are notified that they are liable to be similarly dealt with, while the impending cancellation of the registration of a West Coast union, in response to its own application, is also notified. The neglect of a number of these unions to supply the usual returns can hardly be regarded as a coincidence. Tho assumption must be that the omission is purposeful on the part of these organisations with a view to securing greater freedom of action. But if miners or any other body of workers allow themselves to be deluded into thinking that it is possible for them to enjoy all the benefits accruing under the arbitration system without shouldering any obligations they will find themselves gravely mistaken. But that New Zealand should be entirely immune from the influences that are so freely exerted in the Commonwealth seems unfortunately too much to expect.