BREACH OF AWARD.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 206, 28 August 1920, Page 12

BREACH OF AWARD.

ECHO OF JOCKEYS' STRIKE. NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. NONSUIT POINTS RAISED. Mr. E. (.'. Cutten, S.M., was occupied tbe greater part of yesterday with the case preferred by the Labour Department against 21 of the stokehole men on the steamer Mokoia lor alleged breach of award. Mr. I. I*. Bailey (Inspector of Awards, Wellington) appeared for tho Department, and Mr. A. E. Skelton for the defence. Clement Canty Richards, s°"ccoiid engineer of the Mokoia, was the last witness called. He stated that on the night of July \'2 the stokehole men came to him in a body and said they would not sail with Sir George Clifford aboard the ship. Witness told them to notify the master, anil he would notify tbe chief engineer. 'I'he bunt was not delayed much more than half an hour. By Mr. Skelton: That was the first intimation he had. The H to 12 shift were on at ten minutes past eight p.m. When a ship was in port with full steam on two men were suHicient to keep the fires going. The other men were supposed to be on hand. By Mr. Bailey: Witness could not say whether the men of the 8 to 12 shift were amongst those who waited upon him. Mr. Skelton moved for a nonsuit, lie said, even if the points were not sustained, judgment should go for the defendants on the facts disclosed. Tbe first nonsuit point was that there was no evidence that any of the defendants were engaged to work the ship at that particular time. The only evidence they hud was that the captain said he knew all tlie defendants were on the ship's articles on July 12. The second nonsuit point was that there was no evidence that the defendants had discontinued their employ or broken their contract of service. The third point was there was no evidence that the deputation to tho captain were representatives authorised by the defendants to make such statements. The names of the representatives wero not given, nor the names of the. men on watch at that time. Ap- ! parcntly the whole of the firemen had . been sued, although there were only four j firemen and three trimmers on one watch. ] It could not be claimed that the men in two wntches had refused work, because one lot had not come on duty. The facts showed that there had not been any discontinuance of work, or breach of contract. The question was, "If an order was given to do certain work," and "Wits that order disobeyed?" Mr. Skelton claimed that threatening to strike was not taking part in one. The threat not. to sail did not come within section .'! of the Act. Had the telegraphs been rung, and there had not been obeying of the order, then that might have been a breach of contract. In this case the evidence'was that not a single order was given that was not obeyed. That, Mr. Skelton claimed, was fatul to the prosecution. There had been a threat, but it was not tested to see if orders would not be obeyed. The evidence was clear that steam was up, and the ship ready to proceed to sea at 8 p.m. Mr. Ctitten: They said themselves they would not take the ship to sea. Mr. Skelton reminded his Worship that the second engineer had stated tbat the 8 to 12 watch were on hand at ton minutes pa-st 8 p.m. The 8 to 12 watch was on duty, and remained on duty during the whole of that watch. There was no evidence whatever of discontinuance of employment. The section confined a strike to an actual discontinuance of work. Mr. Cutten: I will hear all you have to put before mc before I give a decision on these pointß. Mr. Skelton said he did not to call further evidence for the defence. Mr. Bailey snu' counsel laid stress upon the fact that no orders had been disobeyed, but what was the use of giving orders when the men bad said they would not sail while Sir George Clifford was on boardll Mr. Bailey claimed that the men partially discontinued their employment when they said they would not said with Sir George Clifford. It was only the fact that Sir George left the ship that made the strike only last under an hour. To refuse to work was practically striking. Mr. Skelton, in reply, said there was no evidence that the men came from below to wait upon the captain. The Act had the words "wholly or partially discontinues his employment." These merl did not partially leave their employment, nor did they refuse to obey any order, Mr. Cutten said the evidence made it quite clear that the men acted in a body, also that they stated they would not sail while Sir George Clifford was on board. They stood by until Sir George Clifford left the ship, and obeyed the orders then given. Mr. Cutten said that fairly justified the view that the men* discontinued their employment, and they must, therefore, be convicted of a breach of the award. SECURITY FOR AFPEAL. Mr. Skelton asked bis Worship to fix a penalty for one of the defendants so that it would be more convenient to appeal. The others could be mulcted in a similar sum, but there need only be an appeal in one ease to govern the lot. Mr. Bailey said there could be no objection to his Worship fixing security for appeal in the case of one of the defendants. Mr. Skelton, speaking in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed, said these men had been given a good character by their captain. In common with other trans- j port workers they were in sympathy with j the Jockeys' Association, which was fighting for its existence. Sir George Clifford bad refused to meet the representatives of the Jockeys' Association, whirl] caused the transport workers to sympathise with the jockeys. It seemed unfortunate that while the seamen were loyally standing for a principle, members of t!ie Jockeys' Association did not act , similarly, but continued riding all the same. Mr. Bailey said there was no appeal on facts unless the amount claimed was over £50. Mr. Cutten said he could not take the responsibility of granting leave to appeal when the Supreme Court bad said there was no ri'rbt of appeal. Mr. Skelton seid in that ease Mr. Justice Sim said the draughtsman started "tit to achieve something, but had never arrived there. Mr. Skelton said it was to try and make himself safe that he nsked for leave to appeal. £o PENALTY IMPO.SIvD. When hearing was. resumed at 11 o'clock this morning, Mr. G. R. Whiting appeared , for the (Labour Department. Mr. R. T. Bailey having left for Wellington by 10-t night's express. Mr. F.. !'. Cutten, S.M.. said thai yesterday lie deviled t'aal judgment would have to go for, the plaintiff in all cas-s, and the matter was adjourned t 11 tide morninir to consider the matters put before the Court bj counsel for the defence. FLr». -worn tbo plea for leniency

I made on the ground, that the only effect was to delny the ship for a period of less I than an hour, added to which tho men i were spoken of very highly by their ! officers. The latter ground while good, rather emphasised the peculiarity of the case. The mere fact that the .hi-p was delayed for only half an hour was not an . important point. The men's action was effective in necessitating Sir <xeorge Clifi ford leaving the vessel and finding some , | other way to Wellington. It was readily .. understood that when men had some , ' mutter of great importance to them- . selves they might feel strongly and act ■ rashly. In such circumstances the , Court would naturally be inclined to .leniency, but there was nothing of thai : kind here. The men held up the boat till . ' they got their own way in a matter ( ! which bad very little to do with them. •In other word* the men took the ex'ti'cmely serious course they did on such ; I extremely inadequate grounds that it j impl'etl a want of sense of their responsibility. ' j Mr. Cut ten said defendants being |! w.orkinsr men any fine would be more or j less serious, but he thought judgment ! should lie for a penalty which would make them take things a little more ' j seriously in the future. He tbereforc j made ut> his mind to give judgment for ~ a penalty of ..5. The second point was re siring judgment in one case only and leaving the others to stand pending appeal, His . j Worship said lie saw no Tenson to object 'I to that course, and entered judgment asrainst W. Tiirlie, leaving the others to ' stand over till .ho.expiration o>B the peri.xl | for appeal, or till an -appeal had been I heard. With regard to granting leave I for apnea! Mr. "Ctitten said there was no ' I provision for appeal,' and in such circum'j stances he did not like to take that course; but he hm\ no objection in sayj ing that if it lav with him to grant leave !of apepal he should unhesitatingly give ithe necessary leave. Judgment would therefore be entered for a penalty of £5 jin Tighc's case. I On tbe application of Mr. A. E. fkelI ton security for appeal was fixed at £15 •10/. As to costs. Mr. Cutten said tbat to 'grant them looked like allowing solx-i----tors' fees to an official of the Depart- , ment. 'Mr. Whiting said bad the case been ' j held at Wellington the. c<*=t of three j witnesses going there would bave been I greater than the expense of Mr. Bailey I coming to Auckland. Mr. 'Skelt'in said there wa* no [authority for granting costs, .i!«o that I Mr. Bailey wu only : n the position of ! having his name used as informant. I Mr. Cutten said he would not grant I costs, excepting to witnesses The ebief i engineer, Mr. Knox, intimated that the 1 1 officers did not ask any costs.