WAS IT A STRIKE?

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 114, 13 May 1912, Page 5

WAS IT A STRIKE?

WATERSIDE WORKERS' UNION IN COURT. PENALTY OF £200 CLAIMED. The instances of the alleged strike which held up the steamer Paparoa last November were the subject of a case this morning before the Arbitration Court (Mr Justice Sim, Meiers Scott ami McCullough), when the Inspector of Awards sued the Auckland Watersideworkers' Union for the sum of £200 penalty for an alleged breach of section 0 of the Industrial and Conciliation Act Amendment Act by inciting and abetting a strike. Mr tSehvyn Mays appeared for the Department, and Mr R. F. Way for the Union. Mr Mays explained that the circumstances one of which the case arose happened in November of la<=t year when the steamer Paparoa was being discharged by Messrs Nearing and Co. The men were engaged on the 14th of the month. On the ISth the secretary of the Union (Mr I'ollctt) wrote to the stevedored saying that the men refused to work pebbles Used in goldniining batteries under 1/6 an hour. Matters went along till the 20th, when the. secretary of the Union wrote complaining about the state of the superphosphates being unloaded and again demanding 1/6 an hour. The men refused to work, and the stevedores had no option but to comply as they could not hang the .ship up, and the secretary of the Union then said to the men, "Well, boys, you can now go back to work." Counsel said he understood that two questions would be raked for the defence. The first was that nothing that the Union or its officials had done amounted to aiding or abetting a strike. Mr Mays referred to an English case reported in 1903. King's Bench, page 600, where it wan hold that the Union was responsible for the acts of its officials. His Honor: Was the question raised in the Lower Court of whether the officers ■were liable? Mr Mays: Yes. His Honor: Then why didn't you sue them as well when the matter was brought in this Court? Mr Mays replied that he didn't draw the information. His Honor said that if there had been an unlawful act he would have thought both officers and Union would have been sued, and the prosecution would have :»ot a conviction against one of them. Counsel went on to say that he understood the defence -would rely on a judgmpnl of the Court, Inspector of Awards v. <'. U. Woods, reported in Book of Awards, vol. 9. page Boil, where it was held that the duty of a wharf labourer Li) begin work arose not from anything in the Award but on a contract between the parties, and a refusal was not a reach of the Act but a subject of a claim for damages. The cases were, however, quite distinct, and in the present instance there was a combination between he workers to hold the ship irp until the employers agreed to an increase of pay. Captain Whyte said Cuat the men did not turn-to on the 22nd, and when witn--* interviewed Collet the latter said. "You received our letter stating that the men would not turn-to until they receive the higher rate of wages'." ColVlt then read the firm's letter to the men and said, "ItV all right, boys, you ran return to work they've agreed to ->ay the extra money." The letter mentioned that the firm granted the increase •'under protest." Some of the men oh-i-cteil to this and the words were struck aut. J." Collet, secretary of the Union, said nil the 21st November there were ah mt Ml members present at a special meet 'n<z held at (he waiting room, where the ■'nion ofl'i.-es were located. Witness -illnil the meeting verbally with the ob'<vt of petting tli" grievance settled be■wren the men and the shin. The men who took part were those on the work. l"he minutes of the mevtinsr <*et out that. hi account of no steps having boon taken ■~ settle the grievance, the men de-lim-d in handle the caran complaint if unless they received 1 AS an hour. Witness w>s aware that pebble* had been workiil at ordinary cargo rate* •Or several year*, but the men had com;l:>iiK\l of i' mure th.m once. To Mr. Way: Witness considered itie ■ondition of the superphosphates v..i = ■.-cry bad. and (he contention was tint ': should be raid f.ir ■•-■ bulk rat instead of ruijr rates, lie in ik no action v all in inducing th-< nifii Hoi to start work. The provident i>t' the Union re 'used to tiUe tin- r!i:>:r at l!ii- meethiJJ -efiTTPil to. as he ~iid i! was nut ■".c.illy railo.l. and i: dM not interest '.hi' Onion as a wbok. No notices wen .cm out to member*. To the Court: The minutes of tlif ■v.«etinjr were in f> -pedal book. They were never considered by the Union •ml .!!il no; appear in tho regular minut. To Mr. Way: Witness celled th? meet i:i;s to gel the matter *ellled. as he ilit not want to h.-.ve the .ship held up Only three-quarters of .in hour wan lost I; was not called in aixvrJauve will ihr I nion rules. Mr. Way contended ihnt tliere was n< case Ii answer. There had not been : tittle of evidence t" show that the unii'i had done anything to incite or abet : strike. The only evidence was the meet ing of the 2L-t. which w;is called in -i irregular manner. Mr. Collelt takin.2 upoi himself to call together the men who wen concerned in the working of the dispute cargo, and the bulk of the union inomhen knew absolutely nothing about tin matter. Th? action of two or three men: bers could not be he.'.d to involve lh< union as a body. There was no evidence that the union knew anything about tli< mutter or endorsed the action in any way The meeting was not called in accordaDCi with the rules. His Honor: According to the evidence o! Mr Collett it was not a meeting of th' union at. all. but. of the people concerned in the dispute. Mr. Way pointed out that on the da\ the meeting was held there must hay. been about COO members at work on tilwharf, and still there wero only some ;,( men present. :54 of whom were workinon the Paparoa. He argued that this wa; not a question of servant and master a' all. but of a small section of the master: themselves doing something which it wai sought to prove bound' the large rest o (.he masters. Mr. Mays says the matter had been dc cided upon a very different point in thi English case he had quoted, where it wa held that if the secretary acted in wha he considered were the interests of th union, then the union was bound. Th action of Mr. Collett was an overt act which indicated that the union was awar of it. If Mr. Way's contention wer sound, then every time there was goin: to be a strike the meeting preceding i wouM never .be regular. His Honor said the Court would tak time to consider its decision. They wer satisfied that there had been a strike, bu the question was whetner the union eonl be connected with it.