A Canadian Example.

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

A Canadian Example.

"In connection with the question ;under consideration it is instructive to comparo tho language of the Now Zealand Statute with that of tho Industrial Disputes Investigation Act passed in Canada last year. Section 56 of that Act enacts that it shall bo unlawful for any employee to go on' Strike on account of any dispute prior to "or during a reference flf such, diifiute for Bcttlemont-aa. moutionccL

in the Act. Section 69 provides that 'an] employee who goes oil strike, contrary ti tho provisions of this Act, shall bo liable to a fiiio of not less than ten dollars nor mora than fifty dollars for each day, or part Uf a day, that such eniployeo is on strike.' Section 60 provides that 'any person who incites or encourages or aids in any manner '. i . . any employee to go or continue on strike, contrary to the provisions of thiß Act, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable to a fine. of not less than fifty dollars, nor moro "than one thousand dollars.' It is clear from this language that the Canadian Legislature _ recognised that the 1 act of striking is limited to a narrow point of time, and that it is necessary to provide explicitly for_tho punishment of those who continue on strike or incito others to continue on strike. This the New Zealand Statute has not dona in express tdsrms, and we are unable to Conclude, from tho language used, that it was tho intention of the Legislature to mako tlieso acts punishable. Application Dismissed. "We hold, therefore, that ' the strike, which in this case is made an offence by the statute, was complete on the morning of Juno 29, and that it was impossible for the respondent to bo guilty of tho offence, of aiding and abetting that strike by anything which ho did after Juno 29. Tho application for enforcement is dismissed." When tho judgment was read Mr. Richmond was in Court as representing Sir. t). M. Findlay, counsel for tho inspector, and Mr. O'Leary for Mr. Wilford, counsel for tho respondent. > • v CASE OF'GEORGE KELPE. In the caso against George Kelpe, the respondent was alleged to have taken part in n strike since, and including, July 10, 1908. His Honour said:— . "A strike by the operative bakers employed in ths City of Wellington took place on Juno 29, 1908. The respondent was. not concerned in that strike-in any way. Ho was engaged by Mr. Wade, a master baker in 'Wellington, a;botit July 1, 1908, to tajce the place of a worker who was out on strife. He worked one day, and then did not return to work. He saw Mr. Wade two or throe days afterwards and told htm that ho had to go with the rest, and had to join tli6 strikers. "Mr. Wilford contended that thero could not be a strike by one vrorker, and that the respondeat was' not ; therefore, guilty of any offence. Wo think that this argument is not sound. On© worker .may bo guilty of tho offense of striking, if, when ho leaves his work, or refutes to return to it, ho is acting in concert with other workers with the view of enforcing some demand made by tho workers upon their and his action is preceded, or followed, or intended to bo followed, by similar action on the part of such craer workers, or some of them. We aro not satisfied, however, that the respondent was really acting in concert with-tho bakers who were on strike. He was not a member of_ the union; and was not interested originally in tho contest between the union, and the master bakers. Ho appears to have left his employment, not becauso he desired to assist thb union in tho contest, but simply bocausa ho was coerced into doing so by tho union ,pickets. It ha s not boeti i proved that tho. respondent was ever really a party to the design on the part of tho. strikers to coerce th« master bakers, and the inspector has failed, therefore, to establish his ease against the respondent. The application is dismissed."

CASE OF GEORGE HUME. In the caso of George Humo, liis Honour said:— "The respondent in this case is alleged to have token part in a strike since, and including, July 18, _ 1908. The facts in this caao aro not distinguishable from those of tho case of the _ Inspector 'of Awards v. Kelpo, in which judgment has just been delivered. The respondent was engaged as second hand by. Mr. Raven, on July 16, to take the plaoo of a worker who was, out oft strike. He started work at 4 a.m. On that day and worked until 1 p.m. He did not return to work again, aaxl when ho saw Mr. Raven on the following Saturday he told him that!:ho had been forced out byi the union There is nothing; in the fevidonco to .suggest that the respondent was really a patty to the design of the'strikers to coerce | tho master bakers into yiolding to their demands, and tho application''inust, therefore, .bo dismissed." Mr. Wilford was counsel for tho respondent. THE DOMENECH CASE. . Referring to tho caso of John Domenech, his Honour said:— ~ _ "It was alleged that the respondent in this case during the month' of June, 1908, created, proposed, aided, or abetted a strike or movement intended to produce a , strike in tho bakery trade in Wellington. It was proved that a strike by tho Workers engaged in that trade took place .on Juno 29, 1908, and that the respondent was very active in promoting the _ strike boforo" it took piaco, and in assisting and encouraging the strikers after it had taken place. The respondent is, howover, not liablo to any punishment for what he did unloss ho was at the time an employer or a worker.

Worker -or Employer? "The respondent is a baker by trade, but had not worked at his trade for over four years. He had been in business l as the proprietor of tlio Fedwar Coffee Palace in Wellington until abont May 6, 1908. Ho then Bold his and was nob again an employer of lp.bonr. until July 3, when he took oyer the Coffeo Palace again in consequence of the purchaser having failed to carry out his contract. He had been a member of the Wellington. Operative Bakers' Union of Workers until January, 1906, when hs resigned. After he had sold his business, ho rejoined tho union on May 30, '1908, but he did not obtain or seek.employment as n journeyman baker. He, therefore, did not come within the definition of a worker contained in tho Industrial Conciliation \ and Arbitration Act at the time when he 'was aiding and abetting tho strike. It was argued on bohalf of the_ inspector that the word 'workor' as used in Section 15 of tho Amendment Act of 1905 should bo given a wider meaning thp.n that assigned.to it by tho interpretation clause of the- principal Act, and that the respondent should bo treated as having acquired again the status A when he sold his business and rejoined tho union as a journeyman baker. We cannot accept that argument, or; give to tho word 'worker' in tho Amendment Act finy meaning other than that contained in the interpretation clause. If the meaning given there bo departed from and the word pmistmsd in its popular sanse it would mean in offirct, substituting tho words 'any person 1 . for the words 'any employer or any Worker,' because every porson aimost .is, in a tons#, a. worker. "Wo hold that the respondent was neither an omployor lior a worker when ho aided and abetted tho strike, and that, therefore, ho lias not committed any offence. Tho application is dismissed." P' Findlay for the inspector and Mr. 1< it?,gibbon for tho respondent. AMENDMENT OF LAW NEEDED. _ v "The present ease/' said his Honour, yetatting, to that of Domonech, "illustrates 'the necessity for an amendment of tho law ~<yith. regard to strikes. The respondent appears to have been an irresponsible mischief maker who joined the union for tho purpose of promoting strife between tho master bakers and their workers. He attended all the meetings of the union at which tho proposed strike was discussed, and was very active in bringing, about a s'triko. At on'o mooting "Mi-. Dotnenech stated,' according to tho minutes, 'that they should stick together i they had nothing to lose by coming out on striko, but everything to gain I' This was perfectly truo so far as the respondent , personally was concerned, but it was unfortunately not true with regard to thoßo who wore foolish enough to accept his guidanco on tho subject. It is difficult to understand why tho respondent troubled himsolf to interfere in tho mattor. It appears to have been done from a lovo of mischief for its own sake, unless the explanation is to be found, as suggested, in the fact that Mr. Kollow, president of tho ' Master Bakers' Association, is tho employer who dismissed tlio respondent from his service m 1904, in circumstances which wore claimod, but without success, to bo an offence under tho Industrial Conciliation ami Arbitration Act (Book .of Awards, vol IV p. 271). _ : ' "The circumstances ofthe casis show tho necessity of amending the law so as to make it penal, as m Canada, for any porson to incite or encourage any. worker to go or con-iinua-onjtrike^