The Domininon. THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1908. STRIKES, AND UNION RESPONSIBILITY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 156, 26 March 1908, Page 6

The Domininon. THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1908. STRIKES, AND UNION RESPONSIBILITY.

9 .■ —" Isr .delivering its . award in the Wharf Labourers'' dispute the Arbitration Court made a) new departure in laying down the Responsibilities of a Union in connection with • strikes. ." The-Union," it says,shall do all in its power to prevent any strike, by any of the workers affected by this award, and if any strike shall occur in which any member of the Union shall take part, such strike shall be prima facie evidence that the Union has committed a breach , of its duty hereunder." ■ This novel direction to the' Union; which amounts to a large extension of the liabilities of Unions as laid down in the statute law, can hardly- be objected to by the workers affected, since it is the outcome of certain solemn' undertakings given to the Court ~by Mr.. M'Laren, secretary of the Union, during the hearing of the dispute last week. The. President asked whether, if " preference to Unionists" were conceded, the Union would undertake to see that no strike takes place. Mr. M'Laren said he would not hesitate to give such an undertaking, "and'"-he further promised that the Union, if it received the preferential concession, would do all in its power to prevent strikes. He assured the Court,' also, that he was satisfied that the Union could'control its members. But when Mr. S. Brown, with the evident purpose of obtaining a perfectly clear understanding upon the point, put the position to him in these, terms" Supposing the, Court says to you, we will give you preference if you are prepared to see that the men do their work, and be 'responsible for them, and make your Union funds liable in ■ the case of a strike," Mr. M'Lareri's reply was not so satisfactory. We were unable, at the time, to violate the sanctity of a _ case then sub judice by- commenting on Mr. M'Laren's remarkable undertaking, but we can make our comment now. He is a member of the body which formally passed a resolution in praise of the Blackball strikers' defiance of the law, and lie also stated in effect to one of our representatives ten days ago that, while he approved of a law to prevent strikes, yet he disapproved of the 1905 enactment that provided for the suppression of strikes after they have begun. The contrast between his opinions outside the Court with his opinions inside it is curious, but we do not .doubt the bona fides of his assurance that he can and will control the men of his own Union. Of the propriety and the equity of the Court's new direction in. its award there can be no two opinions, but it is clear that it_ greatly modifies the statutory definition of a Union's liability in the case of a strike, as laid down in the 1905 Acts. It is for lawyers to decide whether the Court can sustain its new enactment 1 in the faco of the statute law bearing on the point. To the layman the chief interest of this placing _ of the Union upon its honour,'as it wore, is tho pathetic heroism with which the Court,

deserted by the Government, and liable to disablement at any time by such Parliamentary interference as what we have callcd the " blot," is striving to impose the principles of justice upon Trades Unionism. Like • the reservation of the right of variation which it attached to its award in the Orranity coal-miners' dispute, its enlargement of the duties of the Wharf Labourers' Union is a shot from the last ditch in which it is fighting against lawlessness and Ministerial betrayal. The point involved in the Court's innovation is a most important, subject for amending legislation. Curiously enough, it is provided for in the new Industrial Disputes Bill before the New South-Wales Parliament —a measure to which our own legislators may profitably look for guidance on more than one. difficult issue. Clause 39 of that measure is as follows:— ' (1) Whore any person convicted of an - offence against the provisions of section thirty-fivo was, at the time of his committing such offence, a member of a trade or 'industrial union, tho judge may order the trustees of the trade union; or of a branch thereof, or may order the industrial union to pay out of tho funds of the union or branch any amount not exceeding £20 of the penalty imposed. (2) Tho said judge shall, before mak-. ing : such order, hear the said trustees or the said union, or their or its counsel or attorney, and shall not make such order if it is proved that the union,-through .its officers, has, by pub- 1 lie announcements in a newspaper, forbidden its members'to do any act or thing in the nature of a lock-out or striko, or to take part in a lock-out or strike, or by way of instigating or aiding a lock-out or ■ strike. Such order shall havo the effcct of and shall bo deemed to be a judgment for the said amount by the said judge 1 in the District Court named in such order, at t)io suit of the Crown against tho said trusteo or industrial union; and the said amount may bo recovered . by proooss of such..Court as in pursuance of such judgment. (3) Any property of tho union' or branch, whether in tho hands of trus-. teesor not, shall be available to answer any order mado as aforesaid. The Blackball strike has taught.the public many things', but none so important as that collective responsibility is the necessary complement of the collective bargaining for which- the Unions exist. If a Union is the custodian of its individual • members' interests in :fighting for- concessions, it cannot escape its responsibility as. the custodian of its,: members' individual obedience to the law. . ■