A DISPUTED STRIKE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1440, 15 May 1912, Page 8

A DISPUTED STRIKE.

UNION OFFICIALS V. MINUTE BOOK. PASSAGES IN COURT. IBt Tols2r*pli~Pros* Atiocl&tloa.l Auckland, May H. The Arbitration Court continued its sittings at the Supreme Court this morning, when the Inspector of Factories proceeded against Ilio General Labourers' Union for u breach of tho Arbitration Act, by inciting n strike. It will be renipiiibered that last spring Hie men engaged on the city drain works objected l»" sub-contracting, and u general strike ensued.

Mr. A. K. Skdton said that, ns amieiis curia© he wished to sugge-t that the procci'dinifi had been wrongly brought. Not long niter tlio events rotcrred to in the statement, of claim, the union had cancelled its registration miller Iho Act, and lie.il net unity ceased to exist as a. body corporate. There was really no union to sue, as it di:( not exist in law. Mr. Selwvu Mays (for the Department) contended "that such, a position would not bo tolerated for u moment, and urged that, thn union was still answerable for anv wrongful acts committed whiiti it was under the jurisdiction of tlies Act. Mr, ilibtico Sim said tho Court would consider the- point, and in the meantime would hear evidence. A number nf witnesses wero then cahed, including the City Engineer, who said that on October ii!, Mr. Arns, secretary of Hie union, rang him up and said tho nxi'culivc had decided to call a htrike. In answer to a remonstrance, the president and secretary of the union told him that they were practically forced to call Ilio men", out. Mr li. A. Johns, Inspector of Award?, produced copies o! resolutions passed by ilio union endorsing tlm action of tho executive "in calling the men out in the dniimigi! work-." Mr ' Kkcllon, in opening the case tor Iho defence, said that quite a number of men came out of their ciwk accord, without any instigation from the union or its officials. Tin) meeting at which the objection to siib-wmtructing was endorsed was not ii meeting of the union at all— il. «vns merely a small meeting of drainage workers whu could not bo said to voice, liv anything they did. the opinions of tho union as a union. Oilier meetings that wer<> deposed to wero not legal meetings, merely haphazard gatherings, and tne resolutions were not binding on the union. His Honour: The resolution endorsing the action of the executive? Do you sue-, gesl; that that meeting was not properly culled ? Mr. Skeltpn: "That was merely a meeting of drainage workers and was not called" in accordance with rules." Hi.s Honour: "If your argument holds true, the union can escape by merely not complying ,with every formality. ..Every member might; be present, but.owing to somu trifling informality the union .could disclaim'' any. .responsibility for any wrongful, act Jthaf niiglif.be committed.' •JjV;.,'Skeltqa:-"l--con't«ud members.'of the union aye to. be : rendered liable ior..s6i])o act"each'and-everyone of them must 'have 'had an opportunity- of .voting or voicing' His opinion upon it.":. . -Counsel culled α-uumber of witnesses in support, of- Ms opening, statement. • Mr. -1 , . 'Ariis, secretary of the union, said the men just ceased work and werfc not called out by the executive.

His Honour asked the witness how ke reconciled that with his statement to Mr. Bush.

The witness would not say that Mr. Bush was making a mis-statement, but )>o felt there must have been a misunderstanding. What the witness said was that tho men were out, . ■:

His Honour; "If your evidence to-day is true the minute of a resolution, endorsing tho fiction of the executive in calling the men out contains an untruth. Why did you allow this to appear as a minute.-"

After ,i good deal of hesitation the witness said he could not explain that away. His Honour: "Js not the position this: That the minute is true and your evidence is untrue? Do you seriously ask us to believe that your executive h;id nothinir fo do with calling out the men?" Witne.-s: "A portion of them did." "Which ""-"Myself." "Who else?""Corbeit, the organiser.",

In answer to further questions, the witness replied that he could not say that Mr, Fraser, the president of the union, had ever expressed disapproval of tho strike. The witni's; was never authorised by the executive to call any men out.

Mr. P. FrtiMr, president of tho union, was also pressed as to why he allowed tho minute to go on the books. The witness suggested that when the men were excited they were not so particular as to terminology as they would be when calm.

His Honour: "When they get excited they put lies on the books?"

The witness did not agree that it was a lie.

His Honour: "Is it not a fact that if your evidence is true, the minute embodies a lie?— The witness went so Far as to ndmit that a mistake liad been allowed to creep into the minutes.

His Honour: "You ask Uβ to believe that you were so excited that you did not notice this was in the minutes?"—"An error has crept in."

His Honour: "Has this error been corrected?"—"l don't suppose it Tins been thought about since." Mr. Mays: "I believe your advfee to the men was 'Keep cool, and don't get excited.'"—Witness: "Apparently,-it was not followed."

His Honour intimated that the Court would consider the matter.