The 1942 Labour Dispute and the Governor's Powers
In 1942, workers on a construction project in New Providence strike over wages of 4 shillings a day and the absence of a recognised union. The employer is a contractor on a wartime airfield project funded by the United States. The governor, advised by the Executive Council, proposes to deport two strike leaders who are not Bahamian-born. The House of Assembly, dominated by merchants and landowners, supports the governor. A minority of members argues that the Assembly has never legislated on trade unions and that deportation without a hearing violates the colony's own traditions of due process. The strike halts work for eleven days. The Colonial Office cables that it will not intervene unless the colony's courts are bypassed.
1. What is the constitutional position on deportation and on trade unions in 1942?
Read the worked answer
The colony had no general trade-union statute before the 1940s, so unions had no statutory recognition and no protection against dismissal. Deportation of aliens was an executive act under the governor's prerogative and colonial law, but deportation of British subjects required a legal basis. The key question is the status of the two leaders: if they were aliens, the governor could act; if they were British subjects, he needed statutory authority and a hearing. The Assembly's support does not make the act lawful; the courts could quash it. A strong answer distinguishes prerogative power, statute, and the courts' supervisory role, and notes that the Colonial Office's position rests on whether local courts remain available.
2. Assess the Assembly minority's argument that due process is a Bahamian tradition.
Read the worked answer
The argument is partly sound and partly rhetorical. The Assembly has a long history of claiming English liberties, and Bahamian courts applied English common-law principles. But the colony also had a long record of executive detention and vagrancy laws used against the poor. So 'tradition' cuts both ways. The stronger version of the minority's argument is procedural rather than historical: whatever the substantive law, deportation without a hearing lets the executive punish without proof, and that is the kind of power the Assembly has historically resisted when the Crown used it against colonists. The minority should argue from the principle of hearing before condemnation, not from an idealised past.
3. Recommend how the governor should proceed, and identify the risks of each option.
Read the worked answer
Option one: deport without a hearing. This is fast and satisfies the contractor and the Assembly majority, but it invites a court challenge, strains the Colonial Office, and turns a wage dispute into a constitutional crisis. Option two: refer the matter to the courts and hold a hearing. This is slower and the strike continues, but it preserves legality and gives the governor a defensible record. Option three: appoint a board of inquiry into wages and union recognition while dropping deportation. This addresses the cause rather than the symptom and is likely the best course, though it concedes that the strike achieved something. A strong answer recommends option three combined with a hearing for any deportation, and notes that the underlying issue - no legal framework for unions - will recur until the Assembly legislates.