PROMOTING THE "ONE BIG UNION."

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 207, 17 September 1937, Page 4

PROMOTING THE "ONE BIG UNION."

Our Laboui Government has lost no time in, bringmg forward legislation designed to nullify the effect of the judgment given by our Court of Appeal in the case brought before it by the Southland Stock and Station Agents' Clerical Employees* Union, which desired to maintain its independence of the big union formed to embrace practically all clerical . workers within the Otago industrial district. The judgment, based 011 an admittedly very tine point of statutory interpretation, went 111 favour of the smaller union and virtually declared the bigger one to possess no legal status. This was, of course, not at all to the liking of the Government, whose policy is directed to the institution of big and powerful trade unions, all eventually to be brought under the general control of an octopus Federation of Labour, whose promoters are now, with the Government's blessing, very busy pushing out its tentacles in all directions. While the legislation now introduced will help very materially to forward this plan, it is to be recognised that, in some respects, there were other and fairly sound reasons for some of the provisions of the Bill. The Appeal Court decision ran, directly and in a fundamental respect, counter to what had for many years been the interpretation of thq Statute adopted by the Industrial Arbitration Court in recognising established trade unions and in making awards in connection with them. There is thus something in the representation of the^Acting-Minister of Labour that its main purpose was to provide a new definition designed to preserve the standing of these unions and to re-establish the validity of the awards under which they work. So far, so good, but it will be noted that the Government has at the same time snapped at the opportunity thus afforded to further its "big unions" scheme. A clause in the Bill we are told, permits an industrial union, merely "by amending its rules and changing its name," to "extend the area in respect of which it is registered or extend its scope to admit persons engaged or employed in related industries." This is obviously a very far-reaching provision which can be, and doubtless will be, made use of in order to preclude the possi-•biht-y- of- forming relatively local or sectional unions, and of course it has to be read in connection with the sections regarding compulsory unionism that were embodied in last session's amendment of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There can be seen in all this no purpose other than the advancement of the plans of the Federation of Labour, in which, by the way, the "white-collar" groups of clerical unionists will receive but scant recognition beyond the collection of their dues and the contribution of a liberal proportion of them to the fighting funds of the Labour Party. The haste with which the Government has brought in this new legislation, fitting in completely with its own schemes, is in marked contrast with its entire neglect of legislation such as might be hoped to check the so frequent recourse which trade unionists take to strikes, hold-ups and the like, whenever they desire to coerce their employers to speedy compliance with their demands. Of thsse interruptions, operating week in and week out very seriously and viciously against the industrial and commercial life of the country, the Government takes no effective nptice. Indeed, in some cases it has lent encouragement to them. Wage-paying employers are harried and harassed by the scores, indeed hundreds, of highly paid inspectors,- appointed for thfe purpose, and on the most trivial occasion, so trivial, indeed, that magistrates before whom they have- been haled have felt themselves called upon to protest against the waste of their time. ^ But never a word do we hear of any corresponding action being taken where unionists flagrantly transgress against even the existing law to the detriment of the interests of the whole community. Much less is there any suggestion of strengthening the law so as to impose some effective discipiine upon them. The question naturally arises as to what conditions in this respect are to be like when we have in control a declaredly militant Federation of Labour, the counterpart of America's Committee of Industrial Organisation set up by Mr John L. Lewis, with whom our own Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, has sought close contact in the course of a world tour only now approaching its close. Already we have had here at least one sample of the "staytn strike, which is Mr Lewis 's chief weapon of offence. And it can scarcely be forgolten that Mr Armstrong himself virtually condoned resort to it. -