HOW THE AUSTRALIANS DEAL WITH STRIKES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1057, 15 June 1912, Page 4

HOW THE AUSTRALIANS DEAL WITH STRIKES.

The best account of the antistrike legislation in Australia is furnished by Mr Sidney Low to the readers of the “Fortnightly.” He admits that it has by no means completely achieved its object, but he points out with justice that, “with all its defects it is an honest attempt on the part of perhaps the most democratic communities in the world, and those in which labour has more political power than anywhere else, to substitute industrial peace for industrial conflict, and to transfer the struggle from the factory and the mine to the law court aud the council chamber. COMPULSORY ARBII'RA'i'ION. Mr Law summarises the Acts by which the strike and lock-out are vetoed* They arrange other means tor the settlement of industrial disputes ; “These vary in the different States. New Zealand set the precedent of establishing compulsory arbitration courts, and the example has been followed in New South Wales and other colonies. The president of the Court is a judge of the highest tribunal in the Commonwealth or the State, and is provided with assessors chosen by the parties to the dispute. He has jurisdiction In any dispute over wages aud conditions of service referred to him jointly by the parties, but he is also empowered to call them before him on the application of the Government, or, it he thinks proper, on his own initiative. It is his duty in the first instance to get the parties to come to terms by voluntary agreement, and when such agreement has been made aud filed, it has the force of law, and must be carried out by both employers aud employees under penalties which can be enforced in the ordinary way before a magistrate. Failing agreement, the judge, alter hearing the evidence on both sides, makes the award, and fixes the schedules of rates which he considers best adapted to v the circumstances of the industry.” HOW ENFORCED. “This schedule is binding usually for a period of three years, and any attempt to disturb it by a strike or a lock-out can be punished, in some cases by imprisonment, or by fines which may amount to as much as ,£I,OOO upon the employer, or ,£lO and £2O upon the individual workman. Three points are worth noting ; first, that under several of the Acts the Industrial Court may decree a preference in favour of the employment of trade union workmen; secondly, that fhe funds of the unions are themselves liable for breaches of the Act ;

thirdly, that in case the union funds are not sufficient to pay the amount levied by the Court, the penalties may be recovered pro rata from the individual members themselves. A few cases have occurred in Australia, and a large number in New Zealand, in which the costs have been recovered under an order of the Court from the individual workman.” conclusion, “In England too much weight has been attached to the compulsory side of Australasian labour legislation and too little’ to the voluntary and conciliatory side. The Wages .Boards and Conciliation Boards are as characteristic as the Industrial Arbitration Courts, and in at least one ot the States they are much more important. Both in New Zealand and in New South Wales funder the Act ol 1908) the dispute must be referred to Boards ot Conciliation, jointly representing employers and employees m the first instance. The Board can make a determination to regulate the industry, but an appeal is allowed to the Industrial Court, which is also entrusted with the duty oi enforcing the Act.” THE SUCCESS, The Acts have completely broken down in some cases, but according to the State Labour Bureau ot New South Wales, in its report issued in 1909, just before the great coal strike : “i'he Act has already lived down the bitter hostility of a section of the trade unions, the majority of them having already applied lor the appointment oi Wages Boards to determine rates of wages and conditions of labour in their particular industries. The opinion is fast gaining ground in industrial circles that greater benefits aic likely to accrue from the operations ot the Act than could be expected trom the methods of the strike.”

THE NEW SOUTH WALES COAL STRIKE OR 1909. The most famous failure of Arbitration and Conciliation Courts to prevent a strike was the great coal strike of 1909, which

FELT SICK AND DIZZY. “For two years 1 suffered from headache, caused by liver disorder and irregular action of the bowels,' ,f writes Mrs Jane Royes, Ravens wood, Q. “A few doses or Chamberlain’s Tablets quickly relieved me and after taking them regularly for a short time my liver was m perfect order, and I was no longer troubled with sick headache. Now if I feel a little bit out of sorts I take a dose or two of Chamberlain’s Tablets and am very soon myself again.” For sale everywhere.—Advt.

was crushed after six weeks by an Act of coercion of unparalleled severity. Under this Act the police could disperse and arrest any persons who assembled to advocate a strike in any industry affecting coal, milk, or other necessities of life. The leader of the strike was sent to gaol for twelve mouths : “The result of these strong measures was a succesful conference between the Wages Board and representatives of the colliery proprietors and the miners, and then a ballot of the men, which gave a heavy majority in favour of returning to work. In this case, then, the Acts were certainly not abortive,” Mr I,ow does not mention that as a result of these coercive measures the liberals were turned out of office, and that the Labour Party then triumphantly released the imprisoned strikers. Mr Low’s article is full of in- | terest, and supplies just the information which everybody wants at the present time.