Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, WED., JULY 7, 1926. THU RIGHT TO STRIKE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17079, 7 July 1926, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, WED., JULY 7, 1926. THU RIGHT TO STRIKE.

' Tilt? spcoch wit it'll Sir John Simon delivered in the House of Commons debate on the recent general strike in Eilglaml, lias raised in very definite form an issue which may iiave farreaching effects so far as the legal liability of trades unionists is concerned. For many years Gie Right to Work has been a leading Socialist aim, and in times of uncnifdoymcnt it is freely advanced and generally acknowledged, as is the ease in New! Zealand to-day when the Government and local bodies are using eveiy effort to find employment for those who are idle. A corresponding problem is now raised: have the- workers the Right to (Strike! And if they have, are they absolved from till consequences? Sir John (Simon, while admitting that the wage-earner has the right to strike, and holding also the view that this right ought never to be taken away front him, nevertheless qualities his opinion to such an extent as to render the right to strike of extremely doubtful value. The views he enunciates are not lightly ro be brushed aside, having regard to Sir John's special knowledge of the subject and his special experience. He is a jurist of acknowledged eminence ami lias appeared as counsel in several cases in which the legal position of trades unions has been raised as a particular issue. Put in a nutshell the problem is this: What is the legal liability of a worker who goes on strike without notice, thereby breaking his contract with his employer? In the famous Tail Vale ease, it was decided by Mr. Justice Fanvell, who was upheld by the House of Lords Court iu 190.1, that n trade union was liable for damages sustained by its members going on strike. It became a cardinal object of Labor policy to remove the effect of this decision, which was stated in the following terms bv Air, J. It. dynes, when hi- stood as a candidate for Manchester in lOOti: “I support the claim of trade unions for legislation which w ill place them on an equal legal footing with employers. The present law prevents workmen from doing what employers are thee to do, and it permits employers to secure damages from unions who act. only in pursuit of their members’ interests, whilst unions are unable to obtain damages for losses sustained by them.” It .was realised in many quarters that however correct the Taff Vale judgment might be in point of strict, law, it was not expedient ns settling the relationship between employer and employed. Afr. Brougham Villiera, in his work on the Socialist movement in England, mentions that ‘‘an eminent Conservative lawyer is reported to have said when lie heard the judgment: “Well! It's a good decision, but its d—d bad law, and worse polities.”- The result was that (Sir Homy Campbell-Bannerman carried the Trade Union Disputes Act of 1900, whereby immunity of trade unions from actions for damages lias been established. This, however, as Sir John Simon points out, is a very different thing from holding that an individual who breaks a contract is free from liability for loss resulting from his breach. As he pertinently remarks, the c-oal owners would have broken the law if they had failed to give due notice to terminate their existing engagements with their men, and attempted to turn them off without first warning them.' The argument holds equally in the ease of the workers. Ho declared that while a strike properly understood is legal, the Trades Union Council’s decision to call out everyone, regardless of contracts, was not a lawful act. Therefore every workman who came out lmd broken the law and every trade union official who advised or prompted that course was liable in damages to “the uttermost farthing of his personal possessions.” It further followed, lie said, that no Court would uphold a trade union in depriving a member of his benefits for not coming out when the strike order was illegal. Sir John Simon’s view was supported by the judgment which (Sir John Astburv delivered in the Court of Chancery on Alav 11. Air. Justice Astburv held that those who were inciting persons to strike were not protected by the Trade Dispute Act of 19015, since no trade dispute can exist between the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and the Government. It is clear, ho said, that l lie common law of England affords no protection to any combination such as the Trades Union Council. Fir John Simon, commenting on the .decision that same night in the House of Commons, drew attention to the fact that Sir Henry Slo.sser, in his texUbook on the subject, expressed exactly the same view that has now been adopted by the Courts—that a strike to interfere w ith or restrain the Government “would not be covered by the words in the definition in the,Trade Disputes Act.” The Trades Union Council and the unions co-operating with that body were consciously pursuing an illegal course, and were thereby wilfully imperilling the future of the great trade union movement and that principle of collective bargaining which has meant so much in the orderly development of our national life. The issue was not merely a legal one —it went to the very structure of society. Air. Shaw, the Labor member for Preston, declared in answer to Sir John Simon that his party did not admit that anybody who had ceased work had not a right 1o cease work. Commenting, the London Times declares that that the real issue is the imperative need for obedience to the demands of good faith. That is tlic answer to Air. Shaw and to those who think with him. Men have not a right to cease work who have made a bargain, a collective bargain, not to cease work except on certain conditions which under the illegal orders of the Trades Union Council could not arise. The men who struck without notice —little though the great majority realised it—had riot only broken the law, had not only created a sense of distrust that threatened to undo the social labors of a whole century, but had also disclaimed that principle of good faith on which nil that is most hopeful in every development of the English people is based. Before the end of the nineteenth century the principle of collective bargaining was fully recognised by all classes of the community ns an essential element of social anil industrial life, and the State has co-operated with workers and employers .alike to establish it. Hut all progress depended upon good faith between man and man, between group and group; upon the effective working of collective bargaining, upon the sacred character of contracts. The general strike —the wilful an.d illegal threat by a comparatively small minority of the people against the constitutional gpvornment of the country, the attempted obstruction of tho essen-

tial services—threatened complete disaster to tho whole movement. It rests now with the great, trade unions to review their position in the light of the Astburv judgment. In justice to the vast majority of trade unionists, who are loyal law-abiding citizens, tho money they subscribe for sickness and old age ought to bo protected against raids by the politicians of the Socialist party.* Within proper limits strikes may be entirely legal, but it is necessary to have it laid down that such strikes must be industrial and not political, and that the general or sympathetic strike, aimed at the whole community, is beyond tho pale of the law. A term which requires much stricter definition than it has yet received, declares ilie Daily Mail, is “peaceful picketing,” which is allowed .by the Trade Disputes Act. The presence of numbers of strikers deprives picketing of its peaceful character, and therefore should not be permitted. The pickets ought not to be allowed to exceed two in number and their activities should be properly controlled and supervised by law. A further safeguard to the law-abiding Trade Unionist and a guarantee against the tyranny of Communists, “minority movements,” and Socialists should bo a provision requiring that in anv Trade Union a secret ballot of the members shall be taken before a .strike D permissible, anil that the consent of a clear majority of the total number of members of the Union shall be necessary. Trade Unionists would not then be liable to be arbitrarily ordered out at the bidding, it may be, of some alien political organisation, such as the Internationals, whose operations during the recent turmoil in Britain were only too plainly apparent.