THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1908. WHO SHALL DECIDE?

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9064, 13 April 1908, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1908. WHO SHALL DECIDE?

\ Recently Dr Findlay published his interpretation of clause 15 of the Concilation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1905, and its effect in regard to strikers and abettors of strikes. It was to the effect that a strike was not a continuous offence,, being a complete act. as soon as the men in concert left work, and therefore they could be punished for that once and once only. No one could,, according to this interpretation, bo' punished for aiding or abetting unless that was done before the men actually left work. Furthermore, Dir Findlay held that men engaged in. an entirely different calling who aided a strike did not come within the operation of the section. Now, a totally different interpretation has been given by Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C. It was the New Zealand Employes' Federation who sought independent opinion, and Mr Skerrett Ins given one at considerable length. He holds that the words "a strike" in section 15 were used by the Legislature in their ordinary sense, and in the ordinary sense a strike is a continuing act, and subsists so long as the concerted refusal to work is maintained. In support of this view, Mr Skerrett cites a judgment of Chief Baron Kelly, who held that the end of a strike was the time when the men resumed work. In the same way, according to Mr Skerrett, a lock-out by employers is a continuous act, and subsists so long as employers refuse

to employ their workmen. As to the question of whether Unions or indiuduals are liable to punishment for aiding or abetting a strike, he Bays he is of opinion that Unions who pass resolutions encouraging the continuance of the strike, and Unions who donate their funds to the Union engaged in a strike for the purpose of aiding the strike, are liable to punishment under section 15 as aiders and abettors of the strike. He further contends that clause 15 does not limit the punishment for aiding or abetting a strike to the particular trade or calling in which a strike has occurred. The divergent opinions of these two legal giants of the dominion will form food for much controversy, but it is not likely the niattsr will be effectually settled until it comes before the Supreme Court for its decision.