IV.—ARBITRATION LAW.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 75, 16 August 1912, Page 5

IV.—ARBITRATION LAW.

The arbitration law of the land permits of cancellation of registration under the C. and A. Act, and permits conditioned striking. As far as its cancellation and its strike were performed, the Waihi Workers' Union unquestioningly acted with full legal sanction and rights. This fact has been consistently blurred.

The, right of cancellation and the right to strike being guaranteed under the Act, the workers generally have- the more freely acknowledged the Act. But if, as we shall show, the rights arc worthless when tested, then the. law must be voted a sham and a mockery. That' which took place in connection with the Ohinemuri Enginedrivers' Union (to shorten its title) allows of no other deduction. Futile Objections. Ai'lthough. tlhe recognised enginedrivers' governing Imdy of the Auckland district (contnndine; that its sphere was being invaded) < pposed the legislative recognition of ilie Ohinemuri En-gine-drivers' Union, although the En-gine-drivers' Federation refused to recognise the 0.E.U.. and although the Waihi Workers' Union proved that the engine-drivers were an integral part of ifc and protested against a separate and small group of secessionists being registered under the Act in defiance of the vast, majority of toilers on the field, the Crown Law Office, held that the Ohinemuri Engine-driver? could register and that any lo workers could register—and registered accordingly was the- O.E.U.

Obviously, if a majority of a union decides in its own interests to remain outside the. C. and A. Act, and then an infinitesimal minority can register under the O. and A. Act—with all the power conferred r»s to getting an award for the whole- —and thus force the majority back into registration, majority rule becomes a, fnreo and the so-called cancellation and strike guarantees of the f, and A. Act a dead letter.

Note this well, unionists of tho Labor Piii'tv who have hnd reason to strike, and may arrnin wish to strike.

Tho glaring injustice of the position is made wore evident by tho fact that in order to caned registration thcro must not only bo a majority of voters in Ifs favor, Init a majority of union members must vote for cancellation. Reference, to the records of a representative. Federation of Labor deputation to the Minister of Labor (Hon. 0. Lanrenson) on June G will entirely corroborate the foregoing. Lessons to Learn.

'Wo ennnot pmi'o in develop the., implications of tlio decision of the Crown Law Office, but unionists will Foe Tiow,

given any rase of lo scabs ngainst LoOO stalwarts the dor r.iou oould smn:-.li ronl orcnmsal inn ;m"1 Irrnhlv nnp'Til inn , ' l ;-

'I'hoy v,;!l .sen (1)1 Ihiv coll I!) jllnlie I'ow t I'e.'Tlic'oi'slv i\\f* I'iiti.Tivay Ojii'/inedriv"!; ll pelT'd—;mhl Ikuv their i renchcry bii.-l i!) b.. f,)ii"-hv. <«r !he AV:iil:i Wo-Icen;' Union p'i»-.< iiilo i'i° of imr'otriic".

Tiio <!■-<••; .i.iii ..I H:" Cvov.-n Lav ■■ Kflco <'<.iiM new only I>a d(.LV«;iI.-; !)y maiuleining the strike jit all cost?. , ud

by the absolute solidarity of the miners

involved, for any lo of thoin v.vre at liberty to form a minors' union, obtain registration, get an award and—tcmtrol the industry. Not 15 of thorn have proved tn recreant or apostate! Yeb the newspapers would have New Zealand believe that the Waihi miners are seething with dissatisfaction against the Federation of Labor and crying, crying, crying for arbitration. Experiences of Reefton Men. Turning to Reefton, the miners there have been consistent upholders of arbitration, and vrlien their employers began to impose conditions of work at variance with tho legalised agreement, they expected a speedy termination of trouble by the enforcement of the law. Vain hope! By Labor Department, Warden's Court, and kindred agencies their grievance has been battlcdorcd and shuttlecockcd until at date they havo been positively compelled to virtually throw arbitration overboard. Labor Department's Finding. The sapient and impartial law ofPco under pressure investigated the situation at Reefton, and arrived at the conclusion that although the miners were "out" it was neither strike nor lock-out and consequently the Labor Department could not institute legal proceedings. Tho legalised agreement had clearly been violated by the mine management, a penalty attached to locking-out men for observing the agreement —yet because thero was allegedly "not sufficient evidenvo to show that the discontinuance of work was due to the ORDERS of the company," a union which was then arbitrationist to the core had no redress for its arbitration loyalty, nor had the agreement-breaker {>o suffer any penalty for its repudiation of the award. Contract Rears its Head. The following statement was published in due course (July 20): — "The Consolidated Goldfields and Allied Companies at Reefton, acting iinder legal advice, have lodged an application for a rehearing, and also notice of appeal againsb the Warden's decision granting conditional protection. Under strong pressure from the Prime Minister they arc prepared to waive their strict legal rights and. to at once submit the matters in dispute to arbitration, subject to the following:—

"The employers arc prepared to agree to tho appointment of an arbitrator as provided by clause. 11 of the industrial agreement and to abide by the do. cision of that arbitrator and resume operations immediately his decision ir> civcn, if the union will also agree to abide by such decision and to officially instruct' its members to return to work in accordance with the decision. "The two points to bo submitted to the arbitrator are — "(1) The question of the employment of one man only to each 'popper' drill. "(2) The right of employers to have any mining operation performed by contract, including contracts in the stopes." Mr. P. J. O'Regan, the Reefton miners' legal adviser, discussing the matter with a said :— "Thy statement that the companies proposed to appeal against the Warden's decision granting them protection conditionally on their applying to the president of the Arbitration Court within 14 days, under clause 11 of the industrial agreement, for the appointment of an arbitrator, if correct, indicates nothing less than a breach of faith. Directly the proceedings opened at the Warden's Court on the 11th inst. Mr. Ilnnnan, on behalf of the companies, intimated that they were quite willing to have tho matter submitted to an arbitrator. They pressed us to agree, but we refused for three masons: (1) Because it had been open to tho companies all along, even before the mines were shut down, to take advantage, of the provisions of clause 11. (2) Because our consent never was, and is not, necessary. (3) Because if we had given superfluous consent when tho matter reached the Warden's Court, it would appear k> the public that our consent was necessary in order to bring the mattor +o arbitration, and that we bad refused until practically compelled." Nothing to Arbitrate About, The lock-out at T?cefton occurred over the "popper" drill, and that was therefore the only question for subraittal to an arbitrator. tho Introduction by the companies of new matter—the contract question (No. 2) — probably fearing that the arbitrator would arbitrate "by conceding No. 1 to tho miners and No. 2 to the companies, and now disgurvted with the whole business and the apparent design to impose and extend the contract system, tho Federation of Labor presented this resolution to the Prime. Minister: — "With reference to the question of the submission of the, Inang.ihua Miners' Union trouble to arbitration, we beg to state that from our point there is nothing to arbitrate on, as our union is prepared to loyally abide by the agreement alrcadv in existence, and which, in our opinion, the employers have bo-en guilty of. ignoring and have committed a breach by so doing." Hero lot us leave the law—not so much an ,ass, eapitalistically considered, as workers might sneer.