BAKERS' STRIKE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 294, 5 September 1908, Page 5

BAKERS' STRIKE.

UNION FINED £100. COLLINS'S CASE DISMISSED. OTHER. CASES. FAIL. AMENDMENT OF LAW URGED. The enforcement case against tho Wellington Operative Bakers' Industrial Union of Workers was callcd at the Arbitration Court yesterday morning. The citation, after reciting preliminaries, stated that "whereas tho said Wellington Oporative Bakers' Industrial Union of Workers struck within the meaning of tho said Section 30 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908, and whereas tho said Wellington Operatives' Industrial Union of Workers ' proposed, ' created," aiid abetted, and is now aiding and abetting, the said strike," application was made for tho enforcement against tho union of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. Mr. E. A. Le Cren, inspector of awards, said that as directed by his Honour he had cited the union, and in doing so had taken the course of finding out what evidence would bo required, and subpoenaed witnesses, but Mr. Collins, who was appearing personally for tho union, had informed him that thero would be no occasion for that, as it would be admitted that the union struck and engineered tho striko. He had jnst thought it expedient to subpoena Mr. Collins and the president of tho union, to put in the registration of the union as an industrial union of workers, and to call on Mr. Collins to produce tho minutes, and show that. the union had practically committed tho offence as set forth in the citation. His Honour: Aro you authorised to represent tho union, Mr. Collins? Mr. Collins: Tho presidont and myself aro representing tho union. ■ His Honour: What does the union'say to the charge' against it? Mr. Collins: They admit tho offence, your Honour. - His Honour: Then there is no need to hear any evidence.

.His Honour said that under tho Act tho Court had power whero it had boon proved that , a union had committed tho offenco of proposing a strike, and workers had gono out on Strike, to enforce a 'penalty not exceeding £100 on tho union, ami it had power in addition to impose a fine not exceeding £10 on oach worker who had taken part in tho strike. Thoro might be cases in which the court might consider it necessary, to inflict tho full penalty against both the 1 union and those workers who had struck, but that was not sd in tho present case. What the court proposed to do in tho present case was to impose a penalty of £100 on tho union, and if that penalty was paid within a week of tho present date it would inflict only a nominal penalty i on ■ tho men. _ If, however, tho union did not pay tho fine within .a week, the court would havo to impose a substantial, penalty on tho men who had taken (part in the strike. Tho court therefore mado an order directing the union to pay to the Chief Inspector the amount of £100 for the offence of proposing the strike, and would adjourn tho cases against the men till that day woek for tho purposo of enabling tho union to pay tho fine. His Honour then dolircred tho reserved judgments of tho Court in the cases against Andrew. Collins, John Domenech, George Kelpo, and Georgo Hume. All these applications for enforcement were dismissed. CASE ACAINBT A. COLLINS. In tho case against Andrew Collins, his Honour said that the respondent was alleged to luivo committed an offence under Section 15 of tho Arbitration Act, in that during tho poriod from Juno 28 to June 30 ho created, proposed, aided, or ' abetted,' a strike, Or movomcut intended to. produce a strike: The respondent was, and ( has been'for some years,', tho secretary of f th6' ."Wolliii^tjoiif' Operatic Bakers' Industrial Union' of Workers. His Honour referred to the ballots of the union, which led up to tho decision to strike. Tho respondent was present at tho meetings when theso ballots wore taken, but declared himself against a strike.' When, .however, the strike had taken place ho threw in his lot, as ho said, with the strikers, and enoouraged them in their .refusal to return to work. After tho present prOcoed-. ings had boon taken-" against tho respondent ho.signed a document,.in which he admitted that ho had personally aided and' abetted the strike. It was agreed that this admission applied only to what had been done by tho re-/ spondent after Juno 29, and it was admitted by counsel for tho inspector that tho respondent had not done anything in tho way of aiding or abetting a strike before Juno 25, ' ' Duration of a Strike. "It is clear," went.on the judgment, "that, so far as the workers who struck aro concerned, thbir offence was complete when, acting in concert, they failed to return to work on'tho morning of June 29. Whatever they did after that, timo'did'not alter or affect in any way tho legal.character of.their act. Whothcr they returned to work on tho following day, or persisted'for weeks or months in their refusal to return to work, < tho only > offence of which they wcro guilty was that of striking, or taking part in a'striko,.o'n" June 29. To continuo to strike, as tlio workers did ..on tho present occasion, is not made an ofenco by the statute.

"It is admitted that" tho'respondent cannot bo brought within the provisions of tho statuto by anything that ho did beforo Juno 29, but it is claimed that by his. actions after that dato ho has committed the offence of aiding or abetting a strike. The question whether this view can bo accepted depends on the meaning to bo given to the word 'strike,' when used as'a noun in tho statute, It may bo construed in one of two wayfi. It may bo road in its popular sense so as to inelude tho wholo proceeding from tho original refusal by a. body of workers to work foi their employers up to tlio time .when either i settlement is mado and the workers returi to work,'or tho attempt ,to coerce the em ployers is abandoned and the workers returi to their original work, or seek employmen elsewhere. Or it may bo construed to meai only tho act which is made an offence by tlv statute, that is to say, tho original refusa to work, and nothing more. "What tho court has to determine is wliiel of these meanings should bo assigned to th word, and in deciding this tho court is, entitled to tako into consideration tho resul that must follow from adopting olio Or othc of these constructions. 'What- then would b tho result of reading -the word-'strike' in it popular sense? We iiavo already pointed ou that to strike is an .offence, but that-to con tinue on strike is not an offence. -To con struo tho word 'strike' in its popular sensi would mean, therefore, that whilo a worke who continues on strike is not punishable fo doing so any person who aids him to do si is guilty of an offence. In other, words, thi court would have to hold that , tho Legislature has intended that a person who oncour ages another to do a particular act is to b punished for that encouragement, althougl that act-, from tho point of view of the law is perfectly innocent, and the person who ha: dono tho act is not liable to any punishment Tho doctrine that a person may be guilty o an offence by aiding and abetting in the per formanco of an act which itself is not ai offonco is certainly a novelty -in juris prudence, and wo cannot beliovo that th Legislature ever intended to bring aboil such a startling and fantastic result by th languago which it has used. On tho othc hand, to adopt the alternative constructs and to hold that the word 'striko' is used t-denot-o tho particular act which is mado ni offence by the statute, aild nothing more does not lead to any such absurdity as tha which follows from tho other construction Full effect can bo given to tho languago o tho -statute by rea-ding tho word.'strike' ii this restricted sense, and this is tho oon struct-ion which wo think -should bo adopted