ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 115, 14 May 1912, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

THE LABOURERS' STRIKE. CAN THE UNION BE SUED? The Arbitration .Court continued its sittings at the Supreme Court this morning, when the Inspector of Factories j l Mr. Gohns) proceeded against the GenI eral Labourers' Union for a breach of j the Arbitration Act 'by inciting a strike. It will be remembered that last spring I the men engaged on the city drainage j works objected to sub-contracting and a I general strike ensued. ■Mr. A. E. Skelton said as amicus I curiae he wished to suggest that the i j proceedings had been wrongfully brought. | I Not long after the events referred to; jin the statement of claim, the Union 1 had cancelled its registration under the i Act and had actually ceased to exist as a body corporate. There was really no Union to sue as it did not exist in i law. i Mr Selwyn Mays (for the Department) | contended that such a position would : not he tolerated for a moment, and| urged that the Union was still answer-1 able for any wrongful acts committed while it was under the jurisdiction of i the Act. | His Honor Mr. Justice Sim said the: Court would consider the point and in, the meantime would hear the evidence, I J. Martin, one of the members of the. Union who took a sub-contract, said he attended a meeting of the Union at the latter end of October when the Union. endorsed a resolution on the books con- j demning sub-contracting. A few days later when he intimated he intended to j go on sub-contracting, the secretary of! the Union said, ''Well, remember that if yon insist, I have been instructed to I call the men out." The following Tues-. day tlie president of the Union and one; of* the committee came to the shaft; where witness was working and said the. rest of the men were out on strike and they had come to take the party's en- j gine-driveT away. Witness said, "If the ; rest of them are having a holiday we might as well have one," and they all j knocked off. ' J. Moody, contractor, spoke of the interviews "he had with union officials concerning the strike. W. E. Bush, City Engineer, said that on October 24th Arns, the secretary of the Union, rang him up and said the executive had decided to call a strike. In answer to a remonstrance, the president and secretary of the Union told him that they were practically forced to call the men out. J. W. Forrest, J. Clark, and R. H. Irwin also gave evidence. E. A. Gohns, Inspector of Awards, produced copies of resolutions passed by the Union, endorsing the action of the executive ''in calling the men out in the drainage works." Mr. Skelton, in opening the case for the defence, said quite a number of men came out of their own accord, without any instigation from the Union or its officials. He would also call evidence to show that the meeting at which the objection to sub-contracting was endorsed was not a meeting of the Union at all. It was merely a small meeting of drainage workers, who could not be said to voice by anything they did the opinions of the Union as a union. The other meetings that were deposed to were not legal —merely haphazard gatherings, and the resolutions were not binding on the Union. His Honor: The resolution endorsing the action of the executive— you suggest that that meeting was not properly called? Mr. Skelton: That was merely a meet-

ing of drainage workers, and was not called in accordance with the rules. His Honor: If your argument holds true, the Union can escape by merely not complying with every formality. Every member might be present, but owing to some trifling informality the union could disclaim any responsibility for any wrongful act that might be committedMr. Skelton: I contend that if the members of the union are to be rendered liable for some act, each and every one of them must have had an opportunity of voting or voicing his opinion upon it. Counsel called a number of witnesses in support of his opening statement. F. Arns, the secretary of the union, said the men just ceased work and were not called put by the executive. His Honor asked witness how he reciled that with, bis statement to Mr. Bush. Witness would not say that Mr. Bush was making a misstatement, but felt there must have been a misunderstanding. What witness said was that the men were out. His Honor: If your evidence to-day is true the minute of a resolution endorsing the action of the executive in calling the men out contains an untruth. Why did you allow this to appear as a minute ? After a good deal of hesitation witness said he could not explain that away. . His Honor: Is not the position this— that the minute is true, and your evidence is untrue ? Do you seriously ask us to believe that your executive had nothing to do with calling out the men? Witness: A portion of them did. His Honor: Which? Witness. Myself. His Honor: Who else? Witness: Corbett, the organiser. In answer to further questions witness replied that he could not say Fraser, the president of the union, had even expressed disapproval of the strike. Witness was never authorised by the executive to call any men out. P. Fraser, the president, was . also pressed as to why he allowed the minute to go on the books. Witness suggested that when men were

excited they were not so particular as to the terminology as they would be when calm. His Honor: Then when they get excited they put lies on the books Witness did not agree that it was a. lie. .His Honor: Is it not a fact that if your evidence is true the , minute embodies a. lief .■■-.-••■• Witness went so far as to admit that a mistake had been allowed to creep into the minutes. His Honor: You ask us to believe that you were so excited that you did not notice this was in the minutes? Witness: I say an error has crept in. His Honor: Has this "error been rected?Witness: I don't suppose it has been thought about Since.

Mr. Mays: I believe your advice to the men 'was "Keep cool; don't get excited" ? Witness: Apparently it was not fol- • lowed. WHARF LABOURERS COMPENSATION. Judgment was delivered in the case . John Robin v. the Union S.S. Coy. claim . for compensation for injuries to his voice received while working cargo on one of the Company's boats. Plaintiff returned to work on September 25th, and since then had been earning £1 2/ per week, as against £3 10/6 before the accident. The Court was of opinion that plaintiff's hoarseness would not interfere with his performance of the ordinary work of a wharf labourer. The difference in his earnings seemed to 'be due to some extent to the fact that the defendant had not given the plaintiff work in the same way as was done before the accident. The reason for this treatment of the plaintiff was said to be that he had a claim for compensation against the Com- | pany. So far from this being a reason ! for not giving the plaintiff work it ought Ito have been a strong reason for giving I him as much work as possible, so as to ■ make it clear that the accident had not ! affected his capacity for work. In the I circumstances the Court had decided to I treat the difference in the plaintiff's | earnings up to the present time as due ito a large extent to partial incapacity j resulting from the accident, and allowed I him compensation at the rate of £1 15/3 , for four weeks from August 31st, and for a further thirty-two weeks at the 1 rate of £1 per week, making a total of £39 1/. Costs £7 7/ were allowed, and witnesses' expenses, to be fixed by . the clerk of awards. Dr. Ham ford apI peared for plaintiff, and Mr. McVeagh ! for defendant.