Page images

Proposals for voluntary incorporation were made by the majority of the Commissioners both of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions of 1867 and the Royal Commission on Labor, 1894, but in both instances there were minority Reports signed by the representatives of Trade Unions of workmen dissenting from these proposals. It is quite true that several of our witnesses representing various interests as employers have stated they see no objection to this course, but we have not had the advantage of hearing the views of the Trade Unions of the employed on the point. On the other hand, most of our witnesses have expressed no opinion on this particular point, whereas there has been a unanimous opinion expressed by our witnesses as to leaving the liability of Trade Unions to rest on the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case.

Under these circumstances I cannot concur in the recommendation of voluntary incorporation "subject to proper conditions" being made possible by Act of Parliament. The advisability, or otherwise, of this course would largely depend on the views taken as to what were proper conditions" as to which the recommendation is discreetly silent.

[ocr errors]

My personal experience of industrial conditions has proved that satisfactory and binding agreements can be made between employers and workmen, as individuals, without the intervention of a Trade Union. I am anxious that workmen should be as free as at present to conclude such arrangements directly, without Trade Union intervention, but, as several of our witnesses have pointed out the advisability of making agreements entered into between Trade Unions of workmen and Trade Unions of employers legally enforceable, which at the present time they are not, owing to Sub-section 4 of Section 4 of the Trade Union Act of 1871, I agree, therefore, that this Sub-section should be repealed. I cannot assent to the Recommendation that "Section 4 of the Act of 1871, or some one or more of its Sub-sections," should likewise be repealed on the ground that this repeal is necessary to allow Trade Unions to enter into enforceable agreements with their own members. The sub-sections alluded to in this Recommendation, although vaguely referred to as "one or more," are no doubt Sub-sections 1, 2, and 5. The witnesses who have been before us as representing Trade Unions of em

ployers have not advised this repeal as necessary, and we have not had the advantage of hearing the views of witnesses on this point on behalf of the Trade Unions of workmen.

It appears to me that this repeal would enable the Trade Unions to bring actions and obtain injunctions against individual members while leaving the individual members still unable through the operation of Sub-section 3 (a) of Section 4 to bring an action against the Trade Union of which they were members for refusing to apply for their benefit the benefit funds to which they had contributed. The repeal of this Sub-section 3 (a) of the 4th section of the Trade Union Act of 1871 would relieve many members of Trade Unions from hardships to which they are at present exposed through its existence, as set forth in the evidence given before us, and I therefore recommend that this should also be repealed in addition to the repeal of Sub-section 4 of the 4th section of the Trade Union Act of 1871.

I again have the pleasure of associating myself with the arguments advanced by Sir Godfrey Lushington in his Report, against this Recommendation (7) of the Majority Report, though I am willing, as stated above, to assent to the repeal of Subsection 4 of Section 4 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, which would be in accordance with the suggestions advanced by several of our witnesses.

Recommendation VIII. of the Majority Report.

(8) "That an Act should be passed to alter the 7th Section of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, by repealing Sub-section 4 and the proviso, and in lieu thereof enacting as a new Sub-section (which would also supersede Subsection 1): Acts in such a manner as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of any person that violence will be used to him or his family, or damage be done to his property." The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, so far as it would be repealed in consequence of Recommendation (8) of the Majority Report is as follows:

Section VII. Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person

has a legal right to do or abstain from doing wrongfully and without legal authority,

1. Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property; . . .

4. Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place;

shall on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment as hereinafter mentioned be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labor.

Attending at or near the house or place where a 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 a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section.

"Watching and besetting" is at present a criminal offence. If this Recommendation (8) were acted upon it would no longer be so.

The decision in Lyons v. Wilkins merely comes to this, that if you wrongfully and without legal authority watch or beset the house, etc., of another with a view to compel him to abstain from doing or to do any act which he has a little right to do or abstain from doing, the mere fact that you were according to your contention engaged in "peaceful persuasion" is not a good defence. You are allowed so to attend if your object is merely to obtain or communicate information under the statute, but the Court refused to extend the words of the statute to peaceful persuasion.”

With regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lyons v. Wilkins, it should be remembered that though the Trade Union Congress of 1901 were advised by their counsel to get a decision of the highest tribunal on the question of "picketing," and though the Parliamentary Committee of that Congress apparently so decided, no steps have been taken by them to get the decision of the Court, of which they have complained so much, over-ruled by the House of Lords.

I am in entire agreement with the arguments advanced by Sir Godfrey Lushington in opposition to this Recommendation (8) of the Majority Report, and the conclusion which he comes

to coincides with my own Recommendation. Sir Godfrey Lushington sums up the position in the following words:

I am of opinion that picketing is an abuse for which a remedy is urgently required, and that the personal freedom of workmen needs not less protection than hitherto, but more. I, therefore, recommend that the existing prohibition of watching and besetting be retained and that the proviso permitting it for the sole purpose of giving and receiving information be repealed.

I beg to refer to the following extract from Article 48 of the Majority Report re Picketing, with which I, also, cordially




The evidence on this matter laid before us is on this point really overwhelming, and is evidence which the Trade Unions have made no attempt to contradict. What it comes to is this, that watching and besetting for the purpose of peaceably persuading is really a contradiction in terms. The truth is that picketing, when it consists of watching or besetting the house, etc., however conducted, and it is to be observed that the statute places no limit to the number of persons attending for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, or to the length of time during which such attendance may be maintained, is always and of necessity in the nature of an annoyance to the person picketed. As such, it must savor of compulsion, and it cannot be doubted that it is because it is found to compel that Trade Unions systematically resort to it.” I am at a loss to understand how my colleagues, who, in the Majority Report which they have signed, have given their opinion as to what "watching and besetting" is in practice, could have brought themselves to make a Recommendation which removes “watching and besetting" from the list of criminal offences, and ipso facto legalizes it.

We have had before us witnesses representing every leading trade and industry in the United Kingdom and they are unanimous in saying that in practice such a thing as "peaceful persuasion" is unknown.

Some of them have suggested that prima facie there would be no objection to allowing attendance for obtaining or communicating information, as at present, if the law was amended

so that the attendance was limited to two or three persons so attending, but the large majority of the witnesses have expressed the view that there is no difference in practice between the socalled "obtaining or communicating information " and the so-called "peaceful persuasion." Our witnesses are unanimous in recommending that the law should not be amended so as to allow what has taken place before under the guise of “ peaceful persuasion" prior to the decision in "Lyons v. Wilkins," and which would take place again if that decision were over-ruled by statute. Some of the witnesses have expressed themselves satisfied with the law as at present declared; others have desired to see further protection given by limiting the number allowed to attend for "obtaining or communicating information." None of them have advocated "peaceful persuasion," so-called, being allowed by law. The possibility of "watching and besetting" being legalized, without any qualification whatever, was never suggested to the witnesses when giving their evidence. Such a possibility has never been suggested in any of the Bills promoted in Parliament on behalf of the Trade Unions of workmen. The representatives of the Trade Unions of workmen have made no such drastic proposal; it has been reserved for those who have signed the Majority Report to do so, and this, too, in the face of the evidence given before us, and, as it appears to me, in direct conflict with the views expressed by them in Article 48 of their Report.

The object, no doubt, of this Recommendation (8) in the Majority Report is to do away with the sense of grievance or bad faith as to this question of "peaceful persuasion" due to the statement on behalf of the Government of 1875 that words to allow peaceful persuasion were unnecessary, as they were implied by the terms of the Bill, which allowed "obtaining or communicating information." (See Majority Report, Article 46.) Our evidence has shown that intimidation almost invariably results from picketing, whether it is carried on for "information" or or" peaceful persuasion " purposes. The Trade Unions of workmen have had every opportunity of coming forward to deny this evidence; they have not done so. They have complained of the injustice of the decision in "Lyons v. Wilkins; they have not appealed against it. The Government

« EelmineJätka »