COMPULSORY UNIONISM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1579, 20 July 1916, Page 3

COMPULSORY UNIONISM.

AN UNCERTAIN LAW’,

A LABOUR MOVE.

Recently the Court of Appeal decided that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to include in awards what is known as the compulsory preference clause. The Wellington Trades and Labour Council, which fought the case, has issued a circular to unions outlining the effect of the judgment and stops proposed to be taken. The Court, states the; letter, decided that the Act did not empower the Arbitration Court to compel workers to become unionists. “Whilst the Judges gave their pronouncement as above, their individual judgments upon the question of preference to unionists are in conflict, and leave the law uncertain and consequently unsatisfactory. Briefly, their Honours Justices Edwards and Cooper decide that an award cannot absolutely prohibit the employment of non-unionists. Their Honours Justices Sim and Hosking decide that an award legally can prohibit the employment of non-unionists, and the Chief Justice docs not decide the point at all.

“Under the circumstances, wo are approaching the Minister for Labour with the object 'of securing the following amendments to the Act: — “(a) To restore the statute to its condition prior to the Act of 1900, and consequently restoring to the Court the power to give ab-

solute preference to unionists. “(b) To empower the Court to insert in an award where the Court thinks Jit, such a cluase as was inserted in this case by Air Justice Sim, providing, in effect, for compulsory unionism if the Court is satisfied that all parties before it have agreed to or do agree to the insertion of such a clause.

“As this imiler is of the greatest importance, we now seek your cooperation, and would suggest that your organisation endorse our proposals, and submit same to your local representative in the House, with the request that ho endeavour to secure the amendments as staled.”