AIDING A STRIKE

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2875, 13 September 1916, Page 6

AIDING A STRIKE

WOOLLEN MILL.TROUBLE

UNION SECRETARY FINED

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. \V. G. .Uiddell, S.M., delivered his reserved judgment in the case in which the Inspector of Awards (Mr. 11. E. Moston) proceeded against Jidward Kennedy, secretary of the Petono Woollen Milis' Employees' Industrial Union of Workers, to recover. £200 as a penalty for aiding'sin unlawful strike of the workers employed by tho Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company, Limited', tho said workers being bound at the commencement of tho strike by an award of tho Court of Arbitration.

Mr. Iliddcll, in the course of his judgment, said couiisel for defendant had mentioned the case of the Inspector of Awards against Donnelly, whero a person not a worker, but a member of the union, had been proceeded against previous to the year 1908, and tho Arbitration Court held that he was • not liable for any penalty. But at that time it was only employers or members of a union who were liable. The amending Act of 1908 altered the law and made not only workers and employers, but also any person taking part in a strike liable to a penalty, which was limited in the case of workers to £10. It was also provided that where a union was proceeded' against no member of the union could be proceeded against for the same offence in tho samo court. Tho position of defendant was that he was not a worker, but ho was a member of the union, and his comisel said that he came within the definition of a worker merely because he was a member of the union. If counsel's argument were sound, the result would be that any person who wished to aid in an unlawful strike by merely becoming a member of tho union could reduce tho penalty for which ho was liable from £200 to £10. The penalty was limited to. £10 in the case of workers, but any person outside a worker was liable to a penalty of £200. The whole of tho cases referred to by defendant's counsel did not assist him in any way. The evidence of defendant had been very unsatisfactory, and it was impossible to place reliance upon it. It was perfectly clcar that derfendant was attempting to come to some arrangement with tho employers, and that the action -of the workers which brought about tho strike was also duo to defendant, who was the secretary of the union, and had prepared some 200 notices to terminate the award on a particular date. Tho evidence Was that he took these notices with him. to Petono and distributed them to the employees. He stated that he did not know of any employee that he handed a notice to, but there was no doubt that through him the members of the union received 1 their notices, filled! them up, and handed them to the employers on March 3, and on March 10 they all left their employment. It might _be defendant thought he v.as acting within the law. The foot that the defendant prepared those uotices and. distributed them was' an act which aided in the strike that followed, and l.e must be held responsible for his action. In the circumstances he proposed to take into consideration the fact that defendant thought he was acting within the law, and would fix the penalty at £10 and costs. At the hearing, Mr. P. S. E. Macassey appeared for the Inspector ol Awards, andi Mr. T. M. Wilford foi Kennedy.