Page images
PDF
EPUB

whose activity for disturbance is assisted by their privilege of free travel on the railways, began, as is usual with them in such cases, to interfere, and were aided by two socialist newspapers. The strike, though greatly

ended in the defeat of the

prolonged by their efforts, men, who found themselves mostly replaced by others. But M. Resseguier thought he was not sufficiently compensated by this victory for the abuse to which he had been subjected. So he sued M. Jaures and the two newspapers (one published at Paris and the other at Toulouse) for 15,000 francs of damages. The judgment in the first Court of Toulouse was against him. He appealed, and another Court awarded him the compensation he claimed. A further appeal was made by the defendants to the Supreme Court, the Court of Cassation, which has now confirmed the decision of the lower Court.

This decision, which was based on Article 1, 382, of the Civil Code, does not treat intervention in a strike as a crime, but merely as an act which may or may not give rise to damages. Collecting subscriptions and expression of opinion on the merits of a dispute are not regarded as illicit, but violent personal abuse calculated to lead to physical outrage, and deliberate attempts to injure professional or social standing, give the injured party a right to compensation. Where liberty ends and licence begins must be decided on the merits of each case. This seems a reasonable view. Why should a newspaper or a public speaker be allowed to deal out unmeasured abuse to a man just because his employees are on strike ?

RUSSIA.

The law of June 3rd, 1886, charged the factory inspectors with the duty of regulating the relations between employers and employed, and established severe penalties for strikes or other violation of the labour contract. Employers who have caused a breach of the peace are liable to imprisonment for not more than three months, and until June, 1893, the law provided that they might be prohibited from ever again carrying on any business. By the law of June, 1893, however, this prohibition was reduced to two years. On the other hand, workmen who refuse work before their labour contract has expired are liable to not more than one month's imprisonment. In the case of a strike or cessation of work with the object of obtaining an advance in wages or other improved conditions, the leaders of the movement are liable to from two to four months' imprisonment. Those who resume work at once when required to do so by the police are exempt from all penalties. If the men on strike force others to come out, prevent them from resuming work, or attack the property of the factory or any person employed therein, the ringleaders and their accomplices are sentenced to imprisonment for a term which varies respectively from four to eight and from eight to twelve months. The factory inspectors hear any complaints on the part of either employers or men at certain hours on two days in each week, and written complaints are also frequently addressed to them.

SWITZERLAND.

In May, 1888, about 120 carpenters in Zürich struck for higher wages and shorter hours; their demands were granted after a strike of seven-and-a-half weeks. On the termination of the strike the associated employers petitioned the Government to pass stricter measures for the protection of individual freedom, especially that intimidation of persons who are willing to work during a strike should be prevented. A counter petition from the workers was drawn up by the workmen's secretary, which deprecated any special measures being taken against workmen on strike. This petition seems to have been successful in averting the legal restrictions desired by the employers, as no such measures have been passed.

The workmen's secretary argued against the restrictions of picketing on the ground that no strike could succeed without it, and that, as strikes were always the workmen's last resource, any laws which rendered them ineffectual would deprive workers of their only weapon, and place them entirely at the mercy of their employers. The present police laws are sufficient to prevent violence.

SWEDEN.

No restriction has been placed by Swedish law on the action of workmen during a strike, unless such action results in a breach of public order, when military assistance is promptly called in. Great disturbances took place in connection with the Norberg mining strike

in 1891, but sentence was not pronounced on the offenders until 1894, when the Supreme Court condemned one of the agitators to four months' and another to three months' hard labour. In view of the difficulty of dealing with such cases under the existing law, a new law was passed in June, 1893, to facilitate the prosecution of agitators. By this law the Public Prosecutor can now take action against any person who forces another to take part in a strike, or prevents him from returning to work. Formerly the task of prosecution devolved upon the sufferer himself, with the result that he generally neglected to take the necessary measures out of fear for the consequences.

DENMARK.

Danish law confers no power on the authorities to prevent combinations of employed, or to forbid strikes, but all possible efforts are made to put a stop to the intimidation of those who continue at work during a strike.

HUNGARY.

Section V.-concerning Fieldworkers and especially Day Labourers-paragraphs 86 and 94, of the Law 13 of 1876, which regulates the relations of employers and employed (Masters and Servants), is as follows :

(86) In the case of a dispute arising, from any cause whatever, labourers are not entitled to refuse to begin work, to strike work on their own authority, or to absent themselves from the place of work; but they are bound

to wait for the intervention of the duly-qualified authorities, which must follow within three days from the receipt of the complaint, and till then they must not refuse to begin or continue their work.

(94) Whoever, on any pretext, induces field labourers who have already been engaged by another employer to break their contract is liable to a fine of from 20 to 100 florins, and has also to make compensation for the damage done, and for any expenses resulting therefrom, and to send back the labourers to their rightful employers.

« PreviousContinue »