THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY. DECEMBER 5, 1927 MEDIATION PROPOSALS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 5 December 1927, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY. DECEMBER 5, 1927 MEDIATION PROPOSALS

N ot only on account of immediate consequences that can scarcely but reflect to some extent upon us here in New Zealand, but much more so on account of the basic principles involved, should the Australian watersiders’ strike be closely and intelligently watched from here. The news received to-day up to the time of writing indicates that the Federal committee of the Trade Unions—presumably representative of Australian trade unionism in the mass —is at length taking a hand. The first question that this movement prompts is why it has been so long delayed. The trouble that has now reached a climax has been brewing for months now, with only the one inevitable end in prospect unless not only the shipowners but the Arbitration Court also were prepared to submit to the threats and dictation of a “militant” union. Apparently, so long as there was some chance of a surrender of this kind the central body abstained from interfering, although they cannot but have been fully cognisant of the flagrant breaches of the Court’s award of which members of the Watersiders’ organisation had been guilty in almost every port of the Commonwealth. The only inference to be drawn is that the central committee itself has but little regard for the Court otherwise than insofar as it may be made to act in what is considered the interests of unionists. It is one of the main complaints of the employers that the representatives of trade unionism as a whole make no attempt, except in case of a crisis already reached, to lend any support whatever to the Court. In that respect, it may be said, Australia differs very little from the Dominion. Had the Federal trade union “mediators” mentioned as now bestirring themselves made the same move a little earlier all the trouble might well have been averted. However, they elected to hang back until absolutely forced into activity, unless they themselves were to accept the character of mere nonentities. The suggestions which this committee now makes may be considered. As cabled, they are: 1. That the overtime strike be declared off. 2. That the men resume work at all ports under award conditions. 3. That the question of one or two pick-ups be left to the board of reference. 4. That the court hear immediately the men’s log claims. The first two of these proposals are, of course, quite in accord with the conditions which the owners,

have formulated as a basis for the resumption of working relations. The third, although its full significance may noa be quite understood here, may prove acceptable to the owners as well as to the Court. On this point we shall probably have more light later on. It has reference, of course, to the making of both a morning and an afternoon call for the hands required, and is a matter of serious moment to both owners and men where objects of employment cannot but be of a more or less intermittent and casual nature- The fourth proposal assumes that the Court will lay aside all other busi-ness-some of it probably quite as urgently needing attention in the interests of less aggressive workers —in order to consider the demands of a body of men who have hitherto treated that court with the utmost contempt. However, even that may be conceded as a measure of public policy, though, of course, by the men themselves it would assuredly be construed as an outcome in their favour of their resort to direct action, and so an encouragement to have recourse to it again. It is noteworthy that, so far as we have been informed, the mediating committee have altogether evaded one of the most important issues submitted by the owners. That is the question of “guarantees” for the future observance of the Court’s award. On this point they are apparently silent although, in view of past persistent violations, it is one of the most important factors in the case. What form of guarantee the owners may have in thought is not known here, but that, in the public interest, they are entitled to something of the kind the present condition of affairs makes obvious. Possibly it is in mind to make union funds subject to the penalties imposed for breaches of award committed by members. As things stand the employers, being men or incorporated bodies of known substance, are there as easy marks to be shot at. Financial penalties are easily extracted from them. But where hundreds or thousands of men are concerned the case is quite different and individual money penalties that are almost impossible of collection sit very easily upon their shoulders. There may, however, be some alternative form of guarantee in contemplation, of which we shall hear in due course—perhaps some modification of the preference-to-unionist clause of the award, though that could scarcely operate satisfactorily. Incidentally, to-day’s news can scarcely be left without some reference to the empty claim advanced on behalf of the strikers that “every effort has been made t» localise the dispute to their own occupations.” How to “localise” a universal strike of watersiders designed to hold up the whole of the maritime transport of a country whose inhabitants are dependent on its exports for providing their means of existence and whose traders, employers of tens of thousands of hands, deal largely in imports, has yet to be explained. Far from the effects of the strike being “localised,” a London cable to-day shows that they will be felt even as far away as in the Old Country and tend to intensify unemployment difficulties there.