The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1911. SETTLEMENT OF STRIKES.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13525, 6 November 1911, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1911. SETTLEMENT OF STRIKES.

In thesa days when industrial unrest is unsettling and disturbing the social, political, and commercial conditions of so many countries, it is refreshing to hear that there is at least one place where the settlement of labour troubles is effected without paralysing the whole trade and commerce of the country. That happy place is Canada, which seems to understand and solve industrial disputes and problems better than most countries. The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907, commonly known as the Lemieux Act, has in four short years won a world-wide reputation. Dive Legislatures, including the Transvaal Parliament, have passed Acts of which it cs the prototype, and Mr Will Crooks recently introduced into the British Parliament a Bill directly modelled on it. The main principle of the Act is in the recognition of the essential difference between a strike or a lock-out in an ordinary industry, and a strike or a lock-out in an industry which affects the general welfare and convenience of the community at large. It recognises, for example, that a cotton strike and a railway strike arc radically different things. They both mean, of course, serious immediate loss to the parties concerned, and a serious check to the national prosperity. But a cessation of railway transport is an incomparably greater danger to society than a cessation of work in the cotton trade. For a railway, strike can paralyse the whole economic system, and may involve directly every person in the community, pressing with peculiar severity upon the poorer classes. Against this greater social danger, therefore, society is entitled to provide for itself greater and more effective protection.' The Lemieux Act provides accordingly'special machinery to deal with disputes in industries which effect directly the public welfare (such industries, for example, as are connected with coal mining, transportation, communication, and the supply of light, water, or power). It provides for these industries that if either an employer or his employees propose to make any alteration in the conditions of their contract, they shall give thirty days’ notice of such alteration ; that if in the course of the thirty days the other party objects, and a dispute arises, either party may apply to the Minister of Labour for the formation of a commission like that described above —three persons, one chosen by the Labour interests, one by the employer, and the third by these two; that this commission shall meet forthwith, shall investigate, shall endeavour by conciliation to settle the dispute, and shall issue finally a published recommendation as to the right course for both parties to pursue; and that until this recommendation has been issued no alteration in the relations of the two parti,-s shall occur,- and any strike or lock-out shall be illegal. The Act further provides heavy penalties lor anyone who causes prematurely a strike or lock-out, and stipulates that the parties to the dispute may at any moment agree to regard as binding the recommendation of the Commission. That is roughly the scheme of the Lemieux Act of 1907. Its merits arc obvious. The necessity for thirty days’ notice means that no party will cause a dispute without a good cause for a change in their contract, and that'strikes and lock-outs will ■not bo entered into without reflection or for merely tactical purposes. There is, again, an excellent chance that a tactful Commission will effect by conciliation a peaceful settlement of the dispute. And, further, the establishment of a Commission is not only an appeal by the parties to justice, but also in a sense an appeal to public opinion. ■ If the Commission issues a just and reasonable report, which on© party refuses to accept, and thereby causes a strike or lock-out, then it i.< certain that from the very first that party will have alienated public opinion, and thus deprived itself of one of the strongest weapons of industrial warfare. In short, while the Act leaves untouched the ultimate and fundamental right to strike, it nevertheless secures that that right will be exercised only in the last resort; and it makes it certain that while the Commissions do their duty justly and without bias; the public welfare shall not bo damaged by any strike or lock-out that it is humanly possible to avert. And the facts of experience have'proved what theory indicated as probable. The Lemieux Act has been an unqualified success. The Commissions have worked .n a conciliatory spirit; their recommendations, often unanimous, have practically never been rejected. In the first two years of the Act’s operation, fifty-live disputes

came within its scope, and of these fiftythree were settled without any cessation of work. In 1910 thirty more disputes had come up, of which eighteen had been sucnssfully settled, and the rest wera pending at the close of the year. Labour leaders, and, above all, the leaders • f railway labour organisations, have been unanimous in their praise of the Act. A good illustration of its working is given by the history of a dispute which occured at I'orl William. In August, 1909, seven hundred freight handlers in the employ of the Canadian-Pacific Railway, most of them foreigners, went out on strike with out warning, in contravention of the ]/!- inicnx Act. After serious rioting, which stirred up great hostility, they agreed to obey the Act, and went back to work, while a Commission was being appointed. Within six days this Commission had appeased all the ill-feeling previously aroused, and had presented a unanimous recommendation, which formed the basis of a permanently satisfactory settlement of the difficulty.

Of course it does not follow that what works well in Canada will work well n Now Zealand or elsewhere. Such analogies are always dangerous. Hut tho Lcmieux Act is full of strong common sense, and it embodies principles which would do much to avert the national disasters which are constantly being threatened by strikes.