The Dominion. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1910. SHEARERS AND THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 932, 27 September 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1910. SHEARERS AND THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Reported in the papers on Dominion' Day, the award of the Arbitration Coitrt in the shoarers' disEufco and the comments of Me. araot upon it could not hope to receive the immediate attention of'the public. ■ With time to reflect upon the situation, however, the public, we venture to think, will'tend towards a few conclusions that will not be very pleasant to those who champion the Arbitration Act in its present form. The facts of the dispute are fortunately very simple, and the shearers' leader, Mk. Laracy, has left nothing unsaid to keep them before the attention of the public.. The shearaifi demanded' a substantial in-

crease in the rate hitherto paid by tho_ sheepowners, and accompanied their demand with the notification that unless the award fixed a certain rate of pay they would refuse to work and would take all possible means of preventing- the usual visit of the Australian shearers to New Zealand sheds. For months the case has been before the public and many attempts have been made to secure an amicable settlement of the dispute. . The Minister for Labour, realising the injury that threatened the failing repute of the Act, even went the length of ordering, or asking, the three. Conciliation Commissioners to go so far beyond their statutory functions as to sit as an unofficial- tribunal to persuade the irrepressible Mr. Laraoy to pay. some sort of respect to an Act that was obviously unable" to enforce respect and that had just as obviously failed to make organised labour willing to respect it without pressure. Mr. Laracy : stood firm. He lectured and hectored.the Judge of the Court; he snapped his finders at the various pathetic essays m conciliation; he refused to entertain. for a. moment the doctrine that his union, Should give any pledge of loyalty, to the Court's authority.

And now the Court, having heard all'the evidence available; has given its award. The . award, though an advance on existing rates, falls short Of the mininlim insisted' Upon by' the shearers' representative, and presumably in anticipation of possible trouble the Court has taken the very grave step of extending the definition of a strike. 1 It has included in its award the following provision: ■ • V'

Neither -: the-, union UOr any -member thereof shall do- anything, either directly or indirectly, for the.purpose of preventing any person from ; under the conditions fixed by this award, or for the purpose of inducing any person to abstain from-working under tne conditions fixed by this award; and for the purpose of constituting a breach of this-provision 1 it Shall not ha necessary for the offender to have any partiotilar person or persons in vie# at the time of the alleged offence.. In a memorandum tho' purport of this clauso is carefully explained in these • terms: .

''The Court has inserted a clause,for the purpose of making .it-penal for the union or any member thereof .to.attempt to pre* vent workers from accepting work at the rates fixed by the award. No worker is bound to work at these rates, aid-any worker: is. at .liberty to stipulate for - a higher rate; If, however, .workers, acting in combination, refuse to- work with & view to obtaining a higher rate, that will constitute the. offence of taking part in a strike. Under the clause. now embodied in tho award, • the union or ' any member thereof, acting rin the way prohibited, will be guilty of,a breach,of the award, arid will be liable to in respect thereof,- in' addition to .any. penalty- that may be' incurred undcrf Section 110 of the Act." v '■ - ". ''V '■. ' ,'■ ,'■•

.' In an'interview jwhich he gave to one of our representatives, and which we printed yesterday, Me. Laracy made'somo statements which indicate the possibility that- the Shearers' Federation may find itself in the position of having violated Section , 110 of the' Act. . The men, ho says in a message to Australia, are "solid" for "a pound all'round," 1 and he adds that "the men will absolutely decline to make engagements unless they arc guaranteed . this rate of pay. How far such statements as these come within the meaning' of the Court's, memorandum. we do not propose .to discuss.With the legal difficulties that may arise we heed hot now concern Ovirselves. .-What does require emphasis, as a singularly striking commentary upon the claims that "are ' confidently Jmade on . behalf. of. .the Act, is the. ■fact., that the Court finds -it* riecsssarv,' in order to invest its awards, with eoitte sort of effective authority,' to strain its jurisdiction to. ah unprecedented degree. - Hitherto illegality of combination in contravention of the Act has . only attached to the case of workers already in; combining- to enforce the payment of higher wages. Now we nave the new. principle that workers contemplating employpient in a 'certain industry must abstain from anything like an arrangement to ask for wages greater than those, fixed by the Court for that industry. We believe that while the Court may' be within the 'limits of its'authority in making' this remarkable provision, it is obvious that it has laid down a principle of a far-reaching and quite- revolutionary ; character. That we shall hear a great deal more of it is quite certain. .In the meantime, a flood of light is thrown upon the' essential weakness and error of the Act : by this revelation'of the, extraordinary doctrines that must be invented in. order that the Act may be: spared the confession / that- : its claim to make for peace, and stability in the industries.; it governs ,is a bogus claim. For' some' years we ha ve seen that it .can be maintained only by the assistance of new props every year. .'lt is only 'a matter of time before the whole riokety structured comes down with a crash..