The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1913-01-17
The union BADGE.
Right to Wear 1t Upheld by Aus
traIian Judge.
AN EMBLEM OF FIDELITY.

A victory for uniOnism all over the
world was gained when Judge Hig-
gins of the Australian high court and
president of the commonwealth court
of Cancellation and arbitration decid-
ed that workers had right to wear
the union button. Writing from Mel
bourne to the Chicago Tribune, George
A. Dorsey says;
The Brisbane strike hinged about the
right of street car employees to wear
a union badge The strike was a blum
der, because the badge question was
already up before the federal arbitra
ton court and would have been set
tied within a few days by industrial
machinery,
Judge Higgins decision in the case
of the Australian tramway employees
versus the tramway trust is the latest
and perhaps the most important con-
tribution to the complex subject Of in
dustrial legislation. Judge Higgins
said:
The employees are proud of the
badge as an emblem of fidelity to their
comrades and their common interest,
and when they chat upon any oppor-
tunity they like to know whether they
may talk freely on matters relating to
their union to or in the presence of
particular men. The badge is, in fact,
a danger signal where both men are
not wearing it. and line clear when
both or either wears it. 1t is q ticket
Of admission to meetings and serves to
introduce members on visit from an
other state.
THE objection to wearing the badge
is put best and most strongly in Mr..
Goodmans statement. He says. The
evidence shows clearly that the wear
ing of the badge subjects persons who
do not wear it to insults and opprobri-
um from unionists and from members
of the public who sympathize with the
unionists,' say without hesitation
that the evidence points to the oppo-
site conclusion.
Il find that the forbidding of the
badge is, in the case of Melbourne and
of Brisbane. merely part of the policy
of the companies to suppress union
ism. 1t is the old device-frst keep
away unionism as long as you can
and then when it must come create
a dependent union and attract the men
to 1t by favors.
This creating and fostering Of
rival union. this encouragement of its
members and Encouragement of the
members of the other union, is the root
of such bitterness as there is, and the
companies could easily get rid of the
bitterness by ceasing to bestow excep-
tional favors on the c0mpany's union.
MY award is, therefore distinctly
against the attempts to forbid the I'M
ion badge.
There is a dispute between tram
way employees and their employers
in Brisbane. Melbourne and Adelaide
The dispute has reached an acute stage
in Brisbane and may become acute at
any moment in Melbourne and AIDE
laidp by Il resolution of the federal
council on Feb. II the executive of
the Australian Tramway Employees
association was empowered to take
steps to secure union badge of mem
bership. The badges were made and
distributed, but in the meantime in
Brisbane and Melbourne certain steps
were taken by the employers against
the wearing of them.
I'm Brisbane on Jan. Is the men be-
gan to wear them. The manager, Mr..
Badger. gave the men distinctly to IN
derstand that they were to choose be-
tween their billets and their badges.
1t is idle to affect that this was not
dismissal for wearing the badge. The
men were willing to 90 on working
and were deprived of their work and
pay. What more is necessary to con.
stitute a dismissal? 1t IS absurd to
call such a dismissal a strike, what
ever name may be given to the con-
duct of other unions.
at is unfortunately incident to our
constitution that in place Of giving all
the energy | have TO a consideration
OF what is right and expedient to be
done in an industrial struggle | have
in every case TO puzzle out as best
can what is constitutional. In this
case l OveTrule all the technical oh
jections and find the facts, so far as
they affect the objections, in favor OF
the association.
rs it reasonable that the employer
should order his employee not 70 wear
the badge? Mr.. Badger has a quaint
theory that he has common law right
to tell his employees what they should
wear / know of no such common law
right A servant has TO obey lawful
comman ds. not all commands. He does
not commit a breach Of duty in attend
ing particular church or in wearing
a certain makers garments. The com
mon law right of an employee is TO
wear what be chooses, to act as he
chooses, IN matters not affecting his
work He may wear what be likes so
long as he does not offend against de.
cency.
of course the employer may, by due
notice. get rid Of an employee who does
not dress to his liking. but an employee
is not guilty Of any breach of duty in
refusing. There may be a contract for
obedience as TO livery or uniform. but
this court has power to interfere in
contracts and to say what contracts
may or may not be made or enforced
betwee parries.
Accident prevention is becoming