unionists, and 639 non-unionists, and yet the union demands that we should employ only union men. All persons joining the union must be proposed and seconded by two members. This means that the union has power to refuse membership. It also has power to impose fines which a man cannot pay, and may thus practically expel him. The union accepts no responsibility. It is not prepared to guarantee either the capability or the honesty of any man. In this respect we are entirely at the mercy of those people. Under one of the rules it would be possible to ruin any manufacturer, as in brisk seasons the union could withdraw its men from our shops, and we would be unable to bring any men from Australia unless it first gave permission, which might be withheld. Summing up the matter, you might say that the union’s argument is: ‘Let law and learning, trade and commerce, die, but God preserve our union!”
The unionists, on the other hand, contended that, if freedom of employment was allowed to the employers, the union would be destroyed, in violation to the spirit of the Act. “The employers,” they said, “ask for the right to employ or dismiss whom they like. They would take away the right of the employé to refuse to work with one who did not belong to the union. Men would leave the union if they could do so without losing anything. The employers, by demanding these clauses, must aim at breaking up the union. If no rule is made, the employer will favour the non-unionist in preference to the unionist. He will offer such conditions that men will be prevented from joining the union. It has been proved that wherever unionists and non-unionists have been compelled to work together, the result has been unsatisfactory.”
The Conciliation Board felt that the question was too far-reaching for it to deal with, and referred it straight to the Court. The Court, however, ruled that the Board could not pick out any item and refuse to consider it, but must consider the dispute as a whole, and make a recommendation in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Board, after hearing evidence and argument, decided in favour of freedom of employment. Neither employers nor
