a."

PAC

Anti-strike laws

penalize Australians

By PETE THOMAS
Industrial writer of the Tribune,
Australia’s national Communist

weekly.

The struggle of British trade
unionists against being en-
meshed in the nooses of anti-
strike legislation merits the sym-
pathetic support of Australian
unionists, who well know the
effects of such Jaws.

Trade union leaders from Bri-
tain who have visited Australia
have no doubt reported back,
warningly, to their own mem-
bers on the Australian anti-
strike penal laws.

The Australian anti-strike pro-
visions under both Common-
wealth and States’ industrial
laws are a logical part of the
compulsory arbitration here,
which is itself an anti-democra-
tic system designed to harness
unions to the States and under-
mine their independent working-
class stand.

°

Compulsory arbitration well
serves the employers’ interests.
The penal powers are intended
to contain unions’ rebelliousness
against this arbitration system
and intimidate them into sub-
mission to its confining, pro-
tracted, legalistic, costly and un-
rewarding processes.

Moreover, the penal powers
provide an instrument by which
to bleed the finances of unions
when they refuse to abandon the
right to strike.

In the past 11 years, unions
have been fined a total of about
300,000 Australian dollars under
the Commonwealth Act alone
(with fines under State laws ad-
ditional to this). Also, unions
usually are ordered to pay em-
ployers’ costs of proceedings
(including lawyers’ fees), and

these often equal or exceed the
amount of the fines.

Both blue-collar and white-
collar unions have been victims.
The long list includes the Air
Pilots’ Association (four fines
each of $1,000 in the one year),
and a Teachers’ Federation
(fined $400 earlier this year for
a one-day strike), together with
miners, dockers, metal and build-
ing unions, railwaymen and
many others.

Right-Wing led unions (such
as the Ironworkers) have been
fined along with Left-Wing-led
(such as the Boilermakers).

Use of the penal powers reach-
ed massive proportions last year
in a struggle by metal trades
workers over wages. They won
their struggle—but in doing so
they were hit with more than
$80,000 in fines, plus about an
equal amount in costs, for ac-
tions which they had to take to
achieve the victory.

At one stage, in a mere 314
hours proceedings spread over
two days, the court imposed
fines totalling $30,000, dealing
with charges at a rate of one
every 114 minues: a pace and
severity of punitive procedure
that even Judge Jeffrey might
have envied.

The forms of proceedings vary
between Commonweaith and
States, but the Commonwealth
will serve as an example.

This Act does not mention
“strikes” as such but, #everthe-
less provides a ready means of
prohibiting them.

By approaches to the Govern-
ment-appointed Arbitration Com-
mission and its parent tribunal,
the Arbitration Court (and with
‘the Union paying the costs), an
employer can secure an order
prohibiting a union or unions

from taking any direct action
whatsoever for any cause (even
an urgent safety issue), at spe-
cified plants.

This order covers whatever
period (say, three or six months)
the court sets or it may have an
indefinite term, until revoked by
the court.

°

Last year the court even
issued a dragnet order (which
remained in force for about nine
months) which banned the mem-
bers of seven unions from any
direct action for any cause at
any of some 3,600 metal shops
in the State of New South Wales.

With such an order granted,
any direct action is a breach
(“contempt”) of it, subject to a
fine of up to $1,000 on each
union involved. Each day of
“contempt” can bring a separate
charge, so a five-day strike can
mean 5,000 dollars in fines on
each union.

There is power also for indi-
vidual proceedings against union
officials and rank-and-file mem-
bers.

The unions’ own movement
against the anti-strike provisions
is now taking on new force.

Last year, seven boilermakers
in West Australia—immigrants
from Britain—refused to pay
fines imposed on them for strike

action, and were prepared to go

to jail.

So great was the trade union
and public backing for their
stand that the Government and
employers backed off and had
some mysterious stooge pay the
fines.

More recently, a move is
growing for unions to refuse to
pay fines. The national council

of the Tram and Bus Union de- ©

clared that the best way to de-

fines, | mn. it ;
‘(about $16,000)%and any future.

best wishes for your success.

strike.

“fake” issues manufactured by
the employers of that time.

must rely upon memory:

I know we shall be vindicated

has conjured up.’

Salute to Winnipeg General Strike

The following greeting was sent to the Winnipeg May Day
Meeting commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Winni-
peg General Strike, by William Pritchard, one of the main
strike leaders. Principal speaker at the rally, which was at-
tended by 300 people, was Tim Buck.

“Although not precisely aware of the character of this May
Day meeting, I nonetheless send my brotherly greetings, with

“Here, now, in my 82 year I find myself haunted by reminis-
cences, and meditate on those days of 50 years ago as I, mean-
while, contemplate the current scene.

“I remember, still, the Winnipeg of that time, as I observed
it during my short stay of approximately a week, during the

“I recall today the “real” issues of that conflict, as also the

“Looking around at the current scene I discover the work
of modern scholars, researchers for facts, and note their pub-
lished works concerning the episode: that still more scholars
are digging and writing up their conclusions.

“I notice certain changes and developments: the general ac-
ceptance of the principle of Collective Bargaining—the “real”
issue of the Strike; and that today, the-Ironmasters etc., of
the City of Winnipeg now have negotiated contracts (against
which they fought so strenuously half a century ago) with
the metal trades. And other things come to mind and, if I am
not considered too immodest, a statement I made to the jury
in the Trial—I don’t have a copy of that speech at hand, so

“*T do not know what the verdict of this court may be, but

of the future using the knife of critical research will drive
that knife into the very bowels of this bogey which the Crown

“So to all my old friends and comrades in Winnipeg today,
as to those younger who have been called upon to step into
our shoes, again, my warmest greetings.”

a

the forces of government and

by History, for the historians

William C; (Bill) Pritchard,

feat the penal powers is for all
unions to refuse to pay fines, and
it warned of nationwide strike
action by its members if puni-
tive action were taken over fines
which it is now refusing to pay.
The national conference of
the Boilermakers and Black-
smiths’ Society also has decided
against payment_of outstanding |
on. it in 1968.

fines.

Such moves are applauded by
progressives,

At the outset of 1969, the na-
tional secretary of the Commu-
nist Party of Australia, Mr. L.
Aarons, said: “The time has
come for determined militant
confrontation of this system of

legalized repression.” And this
spirit was strong also at the re-
cent outstandingly successful
first national Conference for
Left Action, made up of acade-
mics, students, unionists and
many others.

The struggle against  anti-
strike penal provisions—and, be-
yond that, against compulsory
arbitration. itself—will link with
Strugglés’ against other grossly
anti-democratic features of Aus-
tralian society today, including
conscription for Vietnam and
repression of the right to dis-
sent.

The British and Australian
struggles around the right to
strike can fruitfully complement
each other.

LABOR SCENE

By Bruce Magnuson

Less shackles—not more

Everyone who works for a
living knows there is absolutely
no comparison today between
monetary wages and buying
power. While productivity has
taken a leap upward along with
more intensive _expioitation
through speed-up and overtime
work, living standards tend to
stagnate and even to deterio-
rate.

Capital mergers have created
corporate giants. Together with
federal and provincial govern-
ments, these monopolies chan-
nel astronomical and rising pro-
fits into fewer and fewer hands.
A scandalous tax system robs
the workers to subsidize the
rich. Monopoly claims all bene-
fits from scientific and techno-
logical advances, and manipu-
lates the price structure to its
own liking.

The working class and _ its
trade unions, on the other hand,
are faced with “productivity for-
mulas” and wage “guidelines,”
plus legal restrictions of all
sorts when they seek to. in-
crease their share of the new

* ‘wealth they alone’ produce: Col-
TRIBUNE—MAY 16, 1969—Page 4

lective bargaining is hedged
around with various state-im-
posed proscriptions and prohibi-
tions,

A special feature of this policy
is the effort by monopoly to
secure the help of some labor
leaders to propagate a pelicy of
labor-government - management
“partnership” to gloss over the
basic class confrontation be-
tween labor and capital. So-
called labor-management coun-
cils, and sundry arbitration ma-
chinery based on this “sweet-
heart” philosophy, are invar-
iably stacked against the work-
ers.

After long years of experience
with this nonsense, union mem-
bers are becoming convinced
that only new and militant
forms of mass action can ad-
vance the fight for their imme-
diate needs of more buying
power and an expanding econo-
my to provide jobs that benefit
the community as a whole, and
not just a handful of profiteers.

Following the adoption of Bill
- ‘33 in British Columbia and the

defection of a number of labor
“statesmen” to membership on a
Mediation Board of the type pro-
posed by the late Justice Rand,
workers in Ontario are deter-
mined to defeat such a develop-
ment in their province. The bat-
tle is taking on a mass charac-
ter, with a huge demonstration
scheduled for May 3lst at
Queen’s Park, Toronto.

In Ontario a number of labor
“statesmen” already sit on a
“Union- Management Council.”
While little has been said pub-
licly about this for sometime,
the fact is that the Ontario
“Labor Court” or “Tribunal” re-
commended by the late Ivan C.
Rand is already established in
embryo behind the scene.

When Ottawa stopped paying
county court judges for moon-
lighting in arbitration cases, this
source of arbitrators quickly
dried up. The problem was turn-
ed over to the labor-manage-
ment council. This advisory
body quickly recommended the
setting up of a labor-manage-
ment arbitration commission.

The commission’s job was to
draft a roster of arbitrators and
arbitration board chairmen who
could be on hand to establish
and run the new system of
handling labor grievances.

Legislation authorizing the
setting up of this quasi-judicial
government body of seven mem-
bers was passed in the summer
of 1968. Working directly under
the labor minister, the arbitra-
tion. commission consists of
three members each from labor
and management acting as part-
time paid commissioners. The
seventh man, the chairman, is
a full time official appointed by
the government.

Already, in Ontario, the law
prohibits strikes or lockouts
during the life of a collective
agreement. Arbitration of dis-
putes is compulsory under the
province’s Labor Relations Act.
The fact is that Ontario labor
laws, as they now stand, make-
this province a paradise for the
exploiters of !abor.

Considering the present mood
of workers throughout the prov-

Joya pate Ps al Pb Cet ats

Le

ince, there is no doubt that 4 —
struggle to change this is now
being joined. The May 31st de-

monstration against the Rand
proposals and for a Labor Bill
of Rights will undoubtedly be-
the largest group of labor pro-
testers before the seat of govern

ment in Ontario since the TO

ronto printers strike in 1872.

Following right on the heels
of that demonstration, there is
another one scheduled for June
11th, sponsored by CUPE to pro:
test discriminatory government
policy against hospital workers
and other public employees
Hospital workers are preven
by law from going on strike, 0"
the one hand, while on the othef, —
their wages have been frozeM
Other public employees are d&
prived of the right to freedom ©
association and cannot join bs
union of their choice.

In effect, this places thes
workers in the position of work: ’
ers in Upper Canada prior !0
Canadian Confederation. ot
viously such a situation cann0 »
prevail for long in modern com
ditions and class relationshi