That Legal Opinion.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 71, 19 July 1912, Page 12

That Legal Opinion.

READ BY MR. SEOOON TO THE

HOUSE.

In the debate on fail* Address-in-Reply (Mackenzie Ministry), Mr. T. E. Y. Seddon commenced with a reference to the condition of affairs at Itceflon. Mc did not wish to blame tho Labor Department lor not tuliiutf steps to deal with the matter, because it had obtained an opinion from the SolicitorGeneral, who expressed the view that the men had wit been, loekcsl-ont. MrSalmond was eminently fitted to give an opinion, but was he in possession ol all the facts when he gave his opinion, and from whom did he got his instructions as to tho facts? Was it from the employers or the men? So far, the opinion had not been given to the press or sent to tho men. Mr. Seddon next quoted tiho legal opinion given by Mr. .Salmond in connection with the Beefton mining trouble. At the request of the Labor Department, the SolicitorGeneral wrote to the Secretary of Labor slating that he could not advise thai thcro was sufficient ground for a prosecution of either party concerned in tho Reefton mining trouble for a strike or lock-out or for a breach of section 11 of the industrial conciliation agreement. As to a lock-out, there wo.h not sufficient evidence to show that the discontinuance of work vvaa due to the orders of the company. The balance of evidence was in favor of the supposition that the discontinuance, was the voluntary act of the men themselves, in pursuance of a resolution of the union. If the company had found it necessary to onforco its demands, it could only have done so by means of a lock-out. As it happened, however, the men by their own precipitate action saved the company from the necessity of resorting to a lock-out. The question whether the men were guilty of an illegal strike was a difficult one, but ho was of opinion, on the whole, that tho action of the men. did not amount to a strike within the. statutory definition. The company demanded a change in the established conditions of work. The men were anxious to continue the old practice. It was the company that was seeking to impose terms of employment upon the men, not the other way about. The penal provisions of the Act applied to persons, whetiher masters or men, who seek to enforce somo alterations of the. conditions or terms of employment, not to masters or men whose sole desire was to adhere to conditions which already existed. It could not have been the. intention of the Legislature that any body of workers was bound under penalty of prosecution to submit and conform to any alteration of the terms or conditions of employment which their employers chose to demand from them. Nor did he think that any breach had been committed by cither party of clause 11 of the Inangahua gold minors' industrial agreement. This provides for any matter not provided for in the agreement being settled by a written agreement or before the Board of Conciliation. There had been no request or refusal to do this. Accordingly, ho advised that the case was not one in which any legal proceedings should be instituted by the Department, and that tho question at issue should bo left for settlement to the parties concerned.