ANOTHER "STAY-IN" STRIKE.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 45, 9 March 1937, Page 4

ANOTHER "STAY-IN" STRIKE.

As was foretold here at the time, the complete success which, with the aid of the Minister oi Labour, attended the "stay-in" strike of freezing-works employees at Auckland was sure to provide a preeedent that would be eagerly followed. We have had to wait less than two months for tbis prediction to be fulfilled, for to-day we have word of tbe same course being adopted at a back-blocks timber-mill. In this case, too, the pretext is of the flimsiest, turning not upon any compla^pt as to wages or working conditions hut upon the question of the right of the proprietary to dismiss their own manager. That in this reniote region and on such slender excuse the men should at once resort to the stay-in strike only serves to show how»deep and widespread roots the Parisian Com- j munist notion has already developed in this eountry. There can, of course, be no surprise felt at this wben we look baok upon tbe very definite ruinisterial encouragement given to it on its first appearance in the Dominion. At Auckland, so far as was made pnblic, no word of rebnke fell from the Honorable Armstrong's lips, let alone penal action, beeanse of the men's infringement of the law, while the aid of the police in recovering possession of their property was denied to the employers. The Mimster's only reproach consisted in a plalntive appeal to the men to recognise how badly they were "embarrassing ' a Government that had done so much for them. The fact that the hard-pressed dairymen of the district were snffering serious losses seemingly oarried no weight. with a Minister whose only thought was how to conciliate the men and secure comi>liance with their. demands. Mr. Armstrong went evpn so far as to provide sorne justification for the men's action by saying that during his long career as secretary to unions he hiiruself had never gone before the Conciliation Council or the Arbitration Court because he believed he "could do better independently of tbese tribnnals.' ' With regard to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, designed to abate industrial troublesj, altbough he had been instrumental in its preservation under Labour rule, he at the same itme expressed himself as personally by no means in accord witb it. He thus, so far as it was in his power to do so, belittled the principles that lie behind the Act and so in" the eyes of the strikers made light of the illegal steps they had taken. Then, of course, came the climax when, in virtual contempt of the Court, he "directed" that its award should be so amended as to give the men something more in the way of wages that had been finally urged in the Court on their behalf. Could there have been any more cordial invitation given to others to "go and do likeWise"? In any event, tbe miillhands afc Te Whaiti have evidently construed it in that way, as will donbtiless others unleiss the Government asserts its authority in support of its own legislation and imposes some decisive check to a reeomrse whieh has elsewhere proved so infectious in its eharacten.