TRADE DISPUTES

Southland Times, Issue 20147, 6 April 1927, Page 5

TRADE DISPUTES

BRITISH PROPOSAL LIMITING APPLICATION OF STRIKES PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS FORBIDDEN " (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Rec. 7 p.m.) London, April 4. In the House of Commons, the Trade Dispute and Trade Unions Bill was read a first time. The Bill stipulated that any strike having any object besides the furtherance of a trade dispute within the industry in which the strikers were engaged is illegal, if designated or calculated to coerce the Government or intimidate a substantial portion of the community. The Bill lays down a penalty of two years imprisonment for instigators and participators. It forbids intimidatory picketing, prohibits picketing of non-strikers’ residences under penalty of £2O and three months’ imprisonment.

Henceforth it will be illegal to require a trade unionist to contribute to political funds unless he specifically agrees to do so in writing and political funds of a trade union must be kept separate from ordinary funds. Civil servants are forbidden to belong to trade unions which cater for noncivil servants, or affiliate to organisations or federations of which membership is not confined to persons employed under the Crown, or having political objects. Finally local and other public authorities are forbidden to make employment conditional upon membership of a trade union, or in any way favour trade union employees. The Bill lays down a penalty of £lO or three months’ imprisonment for a breach of contract of service with a local or public authority. The Act does not apply to Northern Ireland.—A. and N.Z.

BITTER LABOUR OPPOSITION. “A CHALLENGE TO WORKERS.” (Rec. 9 p.m.) London, October 5. Before the Labour members saw the Trade Union Bill they decided to fight it line by line. Since seeing its text their determination has been intensified. The Bill proved far more comprehensive than anticipated even by the Conservative Press. “There will be but one opinion among Labour members of the House of Commons, says the Daily Telegraph. “This opens the battle royal.” The second reading is not expected before Easter, but Labour members are already preparing a joint national campaign by political and industrial sections of the" Party. Conservative opinion cordially approves of the Bill, while the Liberal papers, the Daily News and Daily Chronicle, do not

The Daily Herald’s political correspondent regards the clause head, “Prevention of Intimidation,” as probably the most contentious, expressing the opinion that this imposes such restrictions on picketing as leaves the Courts at liberty to declare almost any sort illegal in this connection. It may be stated that the Bill defines intimidation as meaning “To cause in a person's mind reasonable apprehension to him or any member of his family, or damage to his property.” “Injury” includes physical injury, boycott, loss of any kind, or exposure to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. Speaking editorially, the Daily Herald says—“ This amazing measure has been introduced without mandate. The Government does not submit it to a general election. It is not even the fruit of consideration by a Royal Commission. It is purely an irresponsible measure fomented by a Tory organisation, supplemented by kindred organisations and employers, and plotted in Cabinet while Mr Baldwin was making hypocritical speeches about “Goodwill” and “Peace in the Industry.” The Government has made its own doom doubly sure. The Bill will lead such a revival of workingclass activity that Mr Baldwin and his associates will have cause to regret their stupidity.”

Mr Arthur Henderson says—“ The Bill is a direct attack upon the trades unions. It is a challenge to the workers.”—A? ; and N.Z.