The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-05-31

high Level OF lnteIHgence hho HSp'
law in all classes. So far it has SUCCEEDED
in New Zealand: IL might not succeed IN
countries where men like rougher methods
and prefer to fight for the whole rather than
accept part Of what they think their dne'
No outcome Of the New Zealand compui-
sorry arbitration Law was 20 novel or IN
expected As tho giving preference TO
unions in certain trades SO long rs they can
supply men qualified and ready to I'LL va
cancies: none has been 20 much and no
angrily attacked In the colony, or Is lea
likely to be approved by economists else
where Curiovsly enough. this principle
was laid down by the Court Of Arbitration
at the very outaet The leading case on II
Was the award in the Federated Boot
makers dispute decided in isSd, and tbs
best statement OF the practice. since oftsn
followed, Ia found in the judgment there
given BY Mr.. Justice Williams.
Speaking az president Of the court,
he pointed out that for three years the boot
shops had in practice been filed solely
with unionists. and. laying stress on TIM
fact, he indicated that In Later Cases the
court would give weight 70 what appeared
TO be the custom Of each trade. 1t would
reserve the right to decide each casa
strictly on its merits. This it has done. and,
though a preference has been granted to
unionists in more than fifty cases. II has
often been refused. When refusing It,
where i. has not been customary, or does
not seem equitable, the court has been
satisfied to order employers not TO dis
criminate aga inst unionists. Mr.. Reeves
thinks that in New Zealand labor unionists
are more entitled to = preference than
they are in countries whore their unions
are not Incorporated, and consequently,
canno, 10 sued. He points out that the
New Zealand arbitration act deliberately
encourages workmen 70 organize. w hen,
in obedience to the law. they renounoe
striking, and register a. industrial unions,
1t does not seem amiss that they should
receive some special consideration. Their
exertions and outlay in successfully con-
Quoting arbitration cases beneht nom
unionists al we'll as themselves. though
the non-unionists have done nothing to
help them. Nor need the preference
entail any hardship upon their employers
Non-unionist labor Is usually valued either
because it is cheaper or because 1t is moro
peaceful. But. under the New Zealand
arbitration law. non-unionists must get
the same pay a. unionists and unionis
strikes are abolished. II In only the non
unionists lin a trade where there is no
award In force who can strike, and who
though rarely and then only in petty
sroups-do. They are. therefore, to that
extent, the more dangerous servants OF
the two. Neither, I've it noted, docs an
employer who has only non-union men in
liz - hA
again. can he take himself out OF IT by
disoharRinx his union hands and pleading
that he has none in his employ. II an
award has been made dealing with the
trade in his district, he is bound by it a.
much ~ are his competitors who employ
union labor
We should bear in mind that in New
Zealand, wherever it cannot be shown
that tho existence and aims OF q union
are q help to other workmen in its trade.
a well a. to It's own members. and par
ticularly where union men are but frac-
ton OF those working at . given trade. no
preference will Do given to unionists BY
court Of arbitration. This was clearly
laid down by Mr.. Justice Edwards IN Civ;
Ing the award in the Christ Church engi-
neers CASE In 1855 The claim OF the union
to . preference in employment, In my opin-
ION necessarily fails when It il Ascertained
that the union il not really representative
OF tho greater number OF workmen en-
ployed in the trade. and tho claims Of tho
union have not resulted In any practical
benefit to the bulk OF the work-?en. In
New Zealand, moreover. the unions TO
whose members preference In employ
mont u given must not be close guilds.
a. arc certain EnGliah trade societies.
Tho Court of Arbitration BEES TO it that
rules and entrance fees arc reasonable
and light: otherwise no preference will b
granted. Tho president OF the court. in
dealing with this point, said: Not the
least important matter for consideration
in each case must he whether or not the
union Is practically open to esch person
employed In the trade who desires to join. =
Mr. Reeves's conclusion Is that union
which may not strike. and may not shut
out any decent workman In it's trade who
wishes to join It. Is . union left with little
power for mischief, however much it may
do legally and pesceably for its members
and their non -unionist fellow workmen,
BY organizing, probing grievances. nego-
tiating, arbitrating and Watching the OBJ
servance Of awards. We add that the
award OF preference TO unionists does not
destroy . masters right to pick and choose
among individual workmen. Before leav-
ing this subject. No should note that In
New Zealand working women have in
voked The aid OF the Arbitration act TO
good purpose. though not nearly as often
as men. Female typesetters have been
declared entitled to Do paid on the same
scale a. male printers; and women en-
ployed in the boot factories have shared
In the benefits Of the svards regulating
their trade. OF all female factory hands
the tAilorsssss probably owe most to the
Arbitration law. Those in Auckland. whose
condition before the year 1895 was in some
cases bad. gained an increase in wages
estimated at IS per cent. and an agreement
that union women should not b shut out
OF any workshop. and that no prsfersnce
should be given 10 non -unionists.
Mr. Reeves considers some Of the Oh lec-
tons t. the New Zealand Compulsory Arbi-
tration act that have been urged BY writer's
who have predicted that the law cannot
long continue to command obedience
We are told that. 30 soon As the law is put