Slike strani
PDF
ePub

31, 1878, entitled "An act for the regulation and management of trade unions in New Zealand." This act stands to-day as first passed with the exception that an act passed October 12, 1896, made 14 years the minimum age at which persons could be members of a registered trade union instead of 16 years as provided in the original act.

A trade union is defined to mean "any combination, whether temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, whether such combination would or would not, if this act had not been passed, have been deemed to have been an unlawful combination by reason of some one or more of its purposes being in restraint of trade."

The sections of the English act legalizing trade unions, notwithstanding that they may be in restraint of trade, have been adopted textually. It is thus provided that "the purposes of any trade union shall not, by reason merely that they are in restraint of trade, be deemed to be unlawful so as to render any member of such trade union liable to criminal prosecution for conspiracy or otherwise," and "the purposes of any trade union shall not by reason merely that they are in restraint of trade be unlawful so as to render void or voidable any agreement or truth."

In like manner the British policy of requiring these organizations to settle their own disputes without recourse to the courts has been followed. The courts are expressly prohibited from entertaining any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the breach of any of the following agree

ments:

(1) Any agreement between members of a trade union as such concerning the conditions on which any members for the time being of such trade union shall or shall not sell their goods, transact business, employ, or be employed; (2) any agreement for the payment by any person of any subscription or penalty to a trade union; (3) any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union, (a) to provide benefits to members; or (b) to furnish contributions to any employer or workman not a member of such trade union, in consideration of such employer or workman acting in conformity with the rules or resolutions of such trade union; or (c) to discharge any fine imposed upon any person by sentence of a court of justice; or (4) any agreement made between one trade and another; or (5) any bond to secure the performance of the above-mentioned agreements: But nothing in this section shall be deemed to constitute any of the above-mentioned agreements unlawful.

As regards the regulation of trade unions, the most essential provision is that whereby trade unions are encouraged to become registered. Such registration is not compulsory, but unions which elect to do so are given many privileges, such as the right to hold property in the name of trustees, to hold their officers to account, etc. The obligations of registry relate principally to the making of annual reports to the Government, the filing of copies of their rules, etc. As these provisions are practically identical with those contained in the British acts already given they are not reproduced here.

In connection with this law legalizing the formation of permanent associations of workingmen, even though they are in restraint of trade, should be read the provisions of the conspiracy law amendment act, 1894, passed August 21, 1894. This law is almost the reproduction of the British conspiracy and protection of property act, 1875. It repeals the old conspiracy acts of 5 Eliz., c. 4; 12 Geo. I, c. 34, and 6 Geo.

IV, c. 129, which were in force in the Colony, and provides, as does the English act, that:

An agreement or combination by 2 or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be deemed to be unlawful so as to render such persons liable to criminal prosecution for conspiracy if such act committed by one person would not be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall affect the law relating to riot, unlawful assembly, breach of the peace, or sedition, or any crime against the State or the Sovereign. "A crime" for the purposes of this section means an offense punishable on indictment, or an offense which is punishable on summary conviction, and for the commission of which the offender is liable to be imprisoned, either absolutely, or, at the discretion of the court, as an alternative for some other punishment.

Then follows the special provision that no person employed by a local authority or contractor in connection with the furnishing of a supply of gas, electric light, or water shall enter into an agreement to leave the service without giving at least 14 days' notice, under a penalty of a fine of not more than £10 ($48.67) or imprisonment for not more than 1 month. (Bulletin Department of Labor, Vol. VI, pp. 176-177.)

QUEENSLAND.

By the trade-unions act of 1886, Queensland also adopted all the essential provisions of British legislation regarding the right of workingmen to form associations, registration of trade unions, etc., including the fundamental provision of English law that the purposes of any trade union are not unlawful by reason of being in restraint of trade. ART. B. STRIKES, BOYCOTTS, ETC.

SEC. 1. LEGISLATION AS TO STRIKES.

The old English legislation upon strikes became part of the common law of the United States, which was substantially repealed by decisions in the early part of the last century, with the general result of making trades unions and strikes both legal; but under ordinary circumstances, except as above mentioned, there appears to be no legislation upon strikes in any other country than Great Britain, France, Italy, and the British colonies. As has been remarked elsewhere, such matters are left more largely to the political-that is, the military and policejurisdiction in the continental countries, and rarely becomes a subject of treatment in the civil courts.

GREAT BRITAIN.

(38 and 39 Vict., c. 86.) The conspiracy and protection of property acts provides that "an agreement or combination by 2 or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be indictable as a conspiracy is such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime.

"Nothing in this section shall affect the law relating to riot, unlawful assembly, breach of the peace or sedition, or any offense against the State or Sovereign.

"A crime for the purposes of this section means an offense punishable on indictment or an offense which is punishable on summary conviction, and for the commission of which the offender is liable, under

the statute making the offense punishable, to be imprisoned either absolutely or at the discretion of the court as an alternative for some other punishment.

"Where a person is convicted of any such agreement or combination as aforesaid, to do or procure to be done an act which is punishable only on summary conviction and is sentenced to imprisonment, the imprisonment shall not exceed 3 months or such longer time, if any, as may have been prescribed by the statute for the punishment of the said act when committed by one person.

"Where any person willfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in conbination with others, will be to endanger human life or cause serious bodily injury or to expose valuable property, whether real or personal, to destruction or serious injury, he shall, on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction or indictment, as hereinafter mentioned, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding £20 [$97.33] or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 3 months, with or without hard labor."

The first clause of the New York statute (see U. S. Labor Bulletin, Vol. V, p. 130), so far as the stars, is copied from this English statute, "The conspiracy and protection of property act," 1875, which adds, after the words "is doing," the words "either alone or in combination with others."

FRANCE.

Before 1849 the penal code punished strikes and lockouts on the part of the employees, but did not punish the employers unless unjust or abusive; but the law of November 27, 1849, removed this discrimination, and declared that the formation of a coalition, whether by workingmen or employers, was a crime subjecting every person participating in it to imprisonment for from 6 days to 3 months and to a fine of from 16 to 10,000 francs, and the leaders to imprisonment for from 2 to 5 years. Protests against this law led finally to the enactment of the law of May 25, 1864, which repealed the laws against coalitions and in their place substituted provisions granting the right to employers and employees to form combinations for the purpose of improving their conditions, but making it an offense punishable by fine and imprisonment to use threats or violence in carrying out their purpose. Action, indeed, was restricted to such an extent as almost to render nugatory the permission to form coalitions that had been granted.

By the law of May 25, 1864, whoever by threats, violence, or fraudulent maneuvers has brought about or maintained or has attempted to bring about or maintain a concerted cessation of labor, with the object of compelling an increase or diminution of wages or an infringement of the free exercise of industry or labor, shall be punished by an imprisonment of from 6 days to 3 years, or a fine of from 16 to 3,000 francs, or both. If the offense above described is committed in consequence of a concerted plan, the guilty parties can be placed by order or judgment (arrét ou jugement) under the surveillance of the police. during not less than 2 nor more than 5 years.

Workingmen, as has been shown, have the full right to form associations having in view the betterment of their condition. This right includes that of forming temporary coalitions for the purpose of

enforcing their demands; in other words, of engaging in strikes. While a workingman can not be punished for the mere act of engaging in a strike, abuses of this privilege are punishable. For the purpose of making the law in relation to this point more definite a special act was passed May 30, 1892. A translation of this law, which is very brief, follows:

Any person who, for the purpose of compelling the raising or lowering of wages or of making an attack upon the free exercise of industrial work or labor, commits acts of violence, offers injuries or threats, imposes fines, prohibitions, interdictions, or proscriptions of any kind, either against those who work or those who furnish others with employment, shall be punished by imprisonment of from one month to two years and a fine of from 50 to 1,000 francs ($9.65 to $193), or one of these penalties only.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon those who make an attack upon the liberty of employers (maîtres) or workingmen, either by congregating near establishments in which work is being carried on or near the dwelling places of those who direct the work, or by perpetrating acts of intimidation toward workingmen who are going to or returning from work, or by causing explosions near establishments in which work is being carried on or in localities inhabited by workingmen, or by destroying the fences (clôtures) of establishments in which work is being carried on or houses or lands occupied by workingmen, or by destroying or rendering unfit for the use for which they are intended tools, instruments, apparatus, or engines of labor or industry.

RUSSIA.

The responsibility of employers and employees in the case of attempts to force a change in the conditions of the labor contract is defined in articles 1358, 1359, and 1359 of the penal code. Directors of factories who, contrary to the provisions of the law, reduce the wages of their employees before the expiration of the term agreed upon, or without giving due notice, are liable to a fine of from 100 to 300 rubles ($51.50 to $154.50), without prejudice to the right of the employees to claim damages by a civil suit. If the offense is committed a third time, or if in the case of the first or second offense this action results in an agitation on the part of the workingmen followed by troubles or violence necessitating special measures for their repression, the director can be imprisoned for as long as 3 months and deprived of his right to direct a factory for 2 years.

If, on the part of the workingmen, a concerted movement is made for the purpose of suspending work before the termination of the contract of service for the purpose of compelling the employer to raise wages, the instigators of the movement may be imprisoned for from 3 weeks to 3 months, and the others taking part for from 7 days to 3 weeks.

If a strike actually breaks out, having for its purpose to compel the employer to raise wages or change other conditions of the contract before its expiration, the leaders can be imprisoned for from 4 to 8 months and the others for from 2 to 4 months. Those, however, who resume work at the first request of the police will be exempt from punishment. Strikers who destroy or injure any property of the factory or belonging to persons connected with the factory will be condemned to imprisonment of from 8 to 16 months in the case of the leaders, and from 4 to 8 months in the case of the others. These are considered as minimum penalties, which will be increased each time there occurs a more grave offense. Strikers who force other workingmen, by violence or threats, to leave their work or not to return

to it, will be punished by imprisonment of from 8 to 16 months in the case of the leaders, and 4 to 8 months in the case of the others, provided that the violence does not represent a more serious offense.

ITALY.

The penal code of 1859 declared that a strike was a punishable offense. It at the same time established a great inequality between employers and employees, by providing that in the case of the former the act of combining is only punishable if undertaken for the purpose of reducing wages or of unjustly and oppressively imposing conditions of employment upon their employees. In the case of the employees the mere act of combining for the purpose of making a demand constituted a punishable offense. This inequality was corrected by the new criminal code, which went into force January 1, 1890. Instead of making the strike itself offensive the law now punishes only the use of force or threats in connection with such action.

NEW SOUTH WALES.

The act of 1881 adopts various provisions concerning trade unions, strikes, etc., substantially like the English law.

SEC. 2. TRADES UNIONS EXCEPTED, ETC. (See sec. 3.)

SEC. 3. BOYCOTTS. (See sec. 1 above, Strikes.)

There is no specific legislation as to boycotts, except the English statute therein referred to, which in substance repeals the common law of conspiracy as to disputes in industrial trades. (See also Chap. IX, Art. A, sec. 1, above.)

SEC. 4. PICKETING.

The English statute takes notice of this subject and the courts have interpreted it to allow peaceable picketing for purposes of information by not more than two persons at a time. The English conspiracy, etc., act (see also Chapter I, Article F, sec. 1, above) provides that "attending at or near the house or other place where the person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed as watching or besetting within the meaning of this section." It could be wished that some similar statute might be adopted in this country, as the American courts are in a complete state of confusion upon this subject, some supposing that all picketing is unlawful, some taking the opposite view and permitting it even to the point of intimidation or ridicule, while a few take substantially the English ground, which permits moderate picketing for purposes of information only. The crucial point is whether this line shall be overstepped to the extent of persuasion, i. e., whether pickets may only be placed for the purposes of observing the operations of the employer, or whether these pickets may accost or endeavor to per suade individuals possibly in search of employment. The Massachusetts supreme court takes the view that this is lawful, but most of the other State courts hold not.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »