WORKER'S APPEAL

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 163, 12 July 1945, Page 6

WORKER'S APPEAL

GAS STRIKE SEQUEL

JUDGE RESERVES DECISION

An appeal against the decision of Mr. J- H. Luxford, S.M., in a recent case brought against Auckland Gas Company . worKers charging them with being parties to an illegal.strike was heard by Mr. Justice .Fair, in the Supreme Court to-day, the appellant being Albert E. Davis (Mr. Haigh), who had been convicted and fined £3 and costs as a party to the strike. Mr. Alderton appeared for the complainant, Mrs. M. L. Manktelow. Mr. Haigh said his submission was that there was no evidence before the magistrate that Davis was a party to a strike within the meaning of the regulations. The burden of proof was on the prosecution he argued. Counsel said that his second submission was that there was no evidence of a strike by a number of workers, for which Purpose *t jiad to be proved that they interfered or intended to interfere with the effective conduct of the industry. His Honor: If they stopped work at hours when they should have been working surely that tended to interfere with the effective conduct of the industry. It seems to me unarguS Mr. Haigh: But "there should be evidence. , , . . . Not at all. It is an inference which is bound to be drawn from the facts. Counsel submitted there was no evidence of a strike put before the magistrate, and that even if the evidence inferred a strike there was no evidence that Davis was a party. The magistrate had said Davis was not at work, therefore he was a striker on the prima facie evidence Mr Alderton pointed out that in this case the-action was taken by a private person who could not easily ascertain the-complete evidence. She summoned such members of the company, as she felt could give information on the subject. This showed that the work in the retort house was continuous for 24 hours of the day, that; Davis and other men were employed to work on a certain shift, but on a particular shift they did not work as required, leaving the foreman to work alone. On those clear and indisputable facts, he submitted there was a strike-within the meaning of the regulations, and the obvious inference was a tendency to affect the conduct and output of the industry. Counsel argued that. in. a strike asin a. conspiracy, the proof cculd be furnished by inference. His Honor: I: feel there is •strong inferential evidence of a strike-By the workers of the gas company, but what evidence, is there.that this man was away from work in order to .join in that strike? He may have been off through illness or some other cause. . ■■■;■:, Mr. Alderton: He had the opportunity of making that excuse. His Honor: There is no evidence that he failed to offer an excuse. It gives force to Mr. Haigh's submission that such evidence was available and was not called. Mr. Haigh replied, stressing the view that the onus of proving appellant a party to the strike had net been discharged by the prosecution. His Honor said the question of failure to prove that Davis was absent for no other reason than as a party to a strike was a subtle point, but it was also a practical one. Did his failure to give an explanation justify the inference that he had taken part in the strike, or was he entitled to say, if charged with an offence, that he was bound to say nothing about it and no adverse inference was, tor be r drawn because he said nothing? -That was a question to be considered,:and he would reserve his i decision.- ..... :