THE BOOTMAKERS' STRIKE.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 223, 21 September 1888, Page 4

THE BOOTMAKERS' STRIKE.

TWO STRIKERS BEFORE THE

COURT.

'•_^_£*?r-

£20 PENALTY FOE. BREACH OF

AGREEMENT.

The dispute between Messrs Garrett Bros., boot manufacturers, of "Wakefiold-street, arid tho Operative Bootmakers Union was further ventilated by an action for damages heard in the R.M. Court to-day, before Dr. Giles, 'R.M.,' Two test cases wore taken by Messrs Garrett Bros, to ascertain the legality of agreements iv existence between themselves and 'some of their late employees now on strike, in which the penalty for breach of agreement was £20. The summonses, were issued against Albert Waurman and Alfred McCarthy, and £20 damages was claimed in each instance, the alleged breach of agreement being thab the defendants had wrongfully left the service of the firm, without notice, and that bhey had since refused and neglected to return to their employ when requested to do so. Mr Theo. Cooper -appeared for Garrett Bros., and Mr Jackson Palmer for the defendants, and ib.was decided that both cases should be heard at the same time, the circumstances being similar in each. Mr Cooper said that this was an action brought by Messrs Garrott Bros, against the defendants McCarthy and Waurman, who were in the employ of. the firm for a certain time, the former as clicker and the latter as foreman. The firm claimed £20 damages for broach of agreement in McCarthy's case, dated May 18th, 1888, and in Waurman's case, March 15bh, 1888. The defendants were for some time in Garrett Bros.' eriiploy, and left without giving any notice. Ho thought ib only just to McCarthy and Waurman to say they had left their employment practically because of a system,' which could not be too strongly deprecated a system of terrorism extended over certain persons in tho employ of Me*srs Garrett Bros. The defendants; however, had left their employment, and > the plaintiffs olaimed ,to recover £20 damages in each instance. The agreement between the firm , and the defendants • was perfectly legal and fa .ri It was true that Garrett Bros, had the right to determine the agreement by a week's notice on their side, but. the employee only became liable te the penalty it he refused 'or neglected to continue service during the period named. Mr Cooper then called William Garrett, of the firm of Garrett Bros.,who deposed that McCarthy was in Ms employ under agreement as a clicker at £2 8s per week. Mr Waurman was also in the firm's employ, under agreement, as foreman at £3 per week. He (witness) had no cause to complain of:the work done by the defendants, but the firm had experienced trouble with the Union. The defendants had left the employ of the firm against the firm's consent and against their will. Each of the defendants declined to come back to service, although requested to do so. Mr Palmer : Do you think thab you pay your men a fair rate of. wages? Mr Garrett: I think £3 a week is very fair. :•;**• ...A A.";':: ' ■.";'::

Mr Palmer: As a matter of fact, are you treating your employees fairly ? Are you giving them fair wages ? Mr Giti-rett: lam very glad you have brought that up. Some of our men who have; been forced out can earn £1 per day whenever they like. . ' Mr Palmer: Then you mean to tell the that you are nob treating your employees at all ijn-ai. ly ? "Mr Garrett: It is the other way about. We go. by tbe Sooiety rules, and we give even higher prices than the Society.demands for worS. Mr Palmer: You say you. men were compelled to go out ? Mr Garrebb: They were forced to go out. i -■

Mr Palmer : And is the £20 you claim to cover presetit damages ? '■;.'.- :■ Mr Garrett: Thab will not cover pur loss. One of the defendants is our foreman, and while"ht. is out the factory is at a standstill. ■.■■■•■■' ' ' - '- ■: ■'"-■■ •

Mr Palmer : You dbn|t think this agreementuhfair?

Mr Garrett: I think it is a very fair agreement. ..;.'. - . - •■- ---..; Mr Cooper: You say that you have no copnplaint to make against the men, and that they would have been willing to remain in your employ but for bhe Union, forcing bhem out ? - - ; ■ ■ ■ - ' ' '

n Mr Garrett: Yes. ; . - - 0 Mr Cooper: And you actually pay bettor n 'wages than the Union.rates? ' c Mr Garrett": I have actually given my . men more wages than the * Union have ■ asked; AH my men ;• are satisfied. Thoy n- ate simply ** boycotted." : That is.: what it is. - . '' T j Mr Palmer :■ As far as I can see the case *. is thin. Messrs McCarthy and Waurman ,s came to, -mo; and; asked me :to take j. their case up, and I am instructed to fight it _: bo the bitter end. When they i came to me they said, '* We do not c know what tho agreement is be- ). tween* ourselves and Garrett Bros. The ff Union told us that it is illegal.' We are -X not going ; back. t6; work;;ab Garretb c Bros., and we want you to test the s case." I said,:"of course;we, must see the c agreement first" but! was unable ;to see c it- and the agreement is pub into Court J this morning. I cannot possibly see anyif thing wrong: in this agreement, and 1 a cannot see any chance of fighting the 3 case out to the bitter end.; As far as b I • seej it■--; is hopeless .fighting such a case as this. I can only advise ii th?.defendants; t_ pome, to some agreement b with; Mr Garrett? and? to "go back to work; )j Perhaps Mr-Waurmaji.wili go.into the box, i and give evidence." ; His Worship: But Ib it any use? $_-, . 1 Mr Cooper said: that the fact of the* matter was that the defendants were, j hob acting * of, their; own .free : ;will, i but under compulsion exercised by. the ' ■Bootmakers' Union.' There was... a most 1 improper terrorism exercised over these men by the Union, and they were \ actually compelled by others in the same . trade,, by threats of personal violence, to leave Messrs Garrett's employ.; . ■ ! ;Mr Waurman: I will endorse Mr Cooper's 1 remarks; _I am afraid to .go back to work, and. if Idid I would be afraid to' • leave home on account; of. threats of, personal violence from those who oppose ■ Messrs Garrett Bros. I y came here thinking: this agreement was unfair; and illegal, because I heard so. ; I.did .not think the agreement was legal, and I wished Mr Palmer to test it. Dr. Giles : Do the Union:pay any, dahiiages or penalties you may incur under this agreement? j. *- > A '•■■ Mr Waurman: I will beadvisadby Mr Palmer. ■ ' - ' . '•'* .' Mr Palmer:• Then I'll ask this con-' cession; from Mr Cooper, I - see ' the plaintiffs are entitled to £20, and I ask : that they tshould consent to this course— ' that the defendants shall;. be made .»' liable for the full-amount if they do not jgo back to work, and bhab ; a reduced oir only nominal amounb should be ordered if they do go back to work, <_■.., If there is a judgment against;my clients for £20itis : simply ruin. ~. '• • ■'■■ ■ Mi' Cooper, After consulting-Mr'Gar. ' rotb: said s I will' consent to Judgment 1 l or' ft leas amount if Wfturßian and> f MqOftrtby g« baok'to work, It: does wem ; a .mon^du. thing' thft^; In ft civilised country, like this, men who are able and 1 Willing .jo work'for*good ?-w ages*; arepreu '.< vented from' doing so by ethers qpnpected i wilH vll. isatjae:tra4fii X.. e.ly _f.; Mr ] Waaraao woate. sdi br.o Garrett Brotibere <

are also threatened that unless they subscribe to certain rules personal violence will boused towards;them. lean.understand under these circumstances that Garrett Bros/men could be forced .out of their employment. If Your Worship will make the order for £20, I will undertake for Messrs Garrett Bros, that the judgment will not be forced agamst the defendants if they return to their work. The Union is bhe body that ought to pay the damages. • ... , Mr Palmer : Waurman says ib is as much as his life ia worth to go back to work.. This is a serious matter to him if he refrains from coin-** back to work, and rum if he complies' with the orders of th» Union, unless the Union likes to pay all the costs he incurs under the contract. Dr Giles : I think these two doiendants ought to have solicited the aid of the police in this matter. -~,,.,', .. Mr Cooper; I do not think the police would interfere. ".„,'.. j . Dr. Giles: I'hope they will be asked to interfere, and the very strongest aud firmest .Btops taken to put down such an abominable system of terrorism as that which has been mentioned, and thab anybody found guilty of ib will get what he deserves. Ib will be somewhat heavy. Mr Cooper: I notice that in the Newcastle strike the police were powerless to interfere until acbual violence was dono. The police actually will interfere when a man is killed, bub nob to provenb him being killed. Dr. Giles said :he thoughb legislation should bo made to meeb cases of this kind, and he made an order for paymenb of the £20-penalty in each case, with £2:ls cosbs, ib being understood that the penalties would nob be enforced if bhp defendants returned to their work.