The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1920. TRAMWAYMEN AND JOCKEYS.

Southland Times, Issue 18842, 7 June 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1920. TRAMWAYMEN AND JOCKEYS.

Although actuated by what they believed to be good unionist intentions, it looks as if (he Auckland tramwaymen besides losing their jobs and appearing somewhat ridiculous have done little more than cause the people of Auckland, who arc quite innocent of any influence in the jockeys’ dispute, a great deal of inconvenience. Their strike was a well meant effort which missed its object and did much harm without having any chance of doing good. It is rather a pathetic thing to see tramwaymen upsetting the whole of the street traction in Auckland fot the purpose of stopping the racing at Ellers lie, while the jockeys, whose battle the tram waymen believe they are fighting, ride as usual and do nothing to assist their uninvited protectors. It looks as if the tram waymen had been badly advised or that the Jockeys’ Asociation had handed over the task of putting pressure on the public to the Transport Federation. At . the same time it is hardly correct to suy, as the Auckland newspapers have done, that there is no industrial question in the jockeys’ dispute in which the tramwaymen’s union or any othei union should interest itself. Whatever the opinion about the advisability of the jockeys having a trade union to advance their interests, the fact remains that they are legally entitled to form such an organisation and it is noticeable that their asso-

ciation has been recognised by racing clubs in the boulh Island. The position in regard

to the jockeys is complicated by the fact that they- are unable to persuade the Racing Conference, the supreme body in the sport, to recognise their association, even to the extent of replying to their requests for :: meeting. The riders have cited the owners and trainers of racehorses, who employ them, under the Conciliation Arbitration Act, but obviously the proper body for them to deal with is the Racing Conference. That means of securing redress for what they say are grievances has been closed to them through no fault of their own and they have elected to try the processes invoked byworkers in other industries. The Conference is a body with legal standing but .it has no standing under the labour laws of this country in that it is nol an employer. The owners of racehorses , as such, have no voice in (he constitution of the Racing Conference, which exists to exercise control over owners as well as trainers and jockeys, but while jockeys and trainers, even indirectly, have and can have no voice in the deliberation? of the controlling body of the sport, thmen who occupy official positions in the organisation that looks after racing are in the main owners. At one time there wem trainers’ associations in various parts of the dominion and no objections were raised by the controlling body to their existence, bui the Racing Conference never recognised them because it was never asked to do so. The jockeys’ dispute threatens to put horse racing on a footing entirely different to that upon which it has existed up to the present. It was a sport, existing for the amusement of various people, but now it has grown beyond that and if the jockeys obtain at. award will be nearer to a definite trade than hitherto. The change, we think, will not be very noticeable. An unwelcome sign about the dispute is the amount of intimidation that is obviously going on, and it is in this very- apparent effort to obstruct the formation of a jockeys’ “union’’ that the other trades unionists see an industrial aspect which directly interests them. We do not mention this as an excuse for the Auckland strike, but as an explanation of it. The trades unionists do not recognise the nice distinctions between the suspension of jockeys for breaches of the Rules of Racing ami for “union” activities, or between the altitude of the Racing Conference and the owners. There can be no doubt that the Conference is trying to “kill” the association. Unfortunately the jockeys have some grievances that demand redress and it appears to ii?, that the Racing Conference by its studied silence may provoke a state of affairs that will hurt racing. If the Arbitration Court makes an award it may clash with sonic of Ihe rules that the Conference considers vital and unutterable confusion may result. The Court can have no knowledge of these import,ant matters and it sems to us therefore, that the. Racing Conference should not stand aloof while this danger exists. If it takes up the discussion of these grievances directly with the association we will have no repetition of the Auckland tramway trouble, and we will see the end of the intimidation that is going on in the racing world from both rides in the dispute, intimidation on and off the course, in the saddling paddock and worst of all fn the races themselves.