OSBORNE JUDGMENT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1104, 18 April 1911, Page 4

OSBORNE JUDGMENT.

NEW ZEALAND ASPECTS. A DEMAND FOE LEGISLATION. U)i Telctraph.-Press Association.! Christchurch, April 17. At. tho Trades and Labour Councils' Federation of Labour Conference, Sir. E. J. Carey (Wellington) moved (ho following remit: "That the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Trades Union Act be amended so as to remove the restrictions imposed on trades unions by virtue of the Osborne judgment." He said it was absurd that workers in KenZealand should be governed by House of Lords law, or by a law that the Liberal Government of England was prepared to repeal. It ought not to be necessary in' New Zealand to ask for its repeal by a Liberal Government, which affected to have the interests of trades unionism at heart. (A voice: "Which is bunkum.") Trades unionists should not be put to the expense of litigation in the matter. Mr. M'Laren, JI.P., said that the matter arose first in New Zealand when the Solicitor-General rejected rules which allowed a union to take political action. A body or trade firm might take political action, but not of a party nature, in the interests of its trade and of their clients. Similarly, a trades union might have to take political action in the interests of its members. It had not been shown that rules providing (or political action by trades unions wore contrary to statute law, but the position was taken tip that trades unions were subject to common law rulings in England, and that was where the seriousness of the disability of New Zealand trades unionists existed. "Whilst subject to those English rulings, they did not get the benefit of England's special statutory enactments. Thus the TalT Vale decision had been nullified by legislation in England, but in New Zealand they were in the anomalous position that the miners' unions registered under the Trades Union Act were subject to tho TalT Vale decision. As a matter of fact, New Zealand was i twenty years behind (lie Old Country in regard to the protection of the workers under law. The English Lahour party would possibly get legislation through reversing the effect of the Osborne judgment. "Whether unions would use their members' funds on all occasions for political purposes was not the issue. The position was that the funds belonged to the members, who should bs free' to use theiii as thev thought necessary, and provided they did not consnire against (he general law. The New Zealand Government, in getting the Solicitor-General's advice on the subject, simply showed an element of bias against tho trades unions of the country, and the trades unions should not lose sight of it. Tho progressive Government, of New Zealand, ho pointed out, left the Trades Union Act in the position it was in 1878, whilst in England the statute h.id been amended over and over again. The New Zealand Government would not move forward till tile workers made tlieni. It 'was necessary lhat they should stand' absolutely soliil on this, and give the country to'understand that they were in earnest. Individual members of unions might contend that tliey objected to the funds being used for political action, but they had. to br> governed by tho majority. The remit was agreed to. *