ALLEGED SEDITIOUS STRIKE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3136, 14 July 1917, Page 3

ALLEGED SEDITIOUS STRIKE

GAS WORKERS CHARGED

DECISION RESERVED , Before Mr. S. E. il'Carthy, S.M., in the Jlngistrato's Court yesterday, seventeen employees of the Wellington Uas Company, Ltd., nauicii A. Campbell, W. Hannah,' T. Moss, W. Keast, W. A. JJaffiU, l< , . Thomas, George Walker, A. Adams, J. Evans, T. Humphries, J.'incs Mann, J. Haines, J. jManslield, 'L , . l'rasor, C. Palmer, W. J. Hart, and J'. Kecombe were charged with being parties to a seditious strike. Mr. V. R. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the. prosecution, iiiid Mr. P. ,1. O'Hegan for all the ilefciidants. It μ-os sot out in the charge that the strike was seditious iu that it had a tendency to interfere with the. manufacture of coal gas in ,-m industry declared by the Govornor-Geucral-iu-Council on July 5, 1917, pursuant to the regulations made under the War Regulations Act, 19H, to be an industry essential to the public welfare. Case for the Prosecution. Mr. Meredith, in opening, said 'that the object of the regulations under which the charge was laid was to provide for the smooth running of essential industries. It meant that differences between employees and employers must be settled without disruption to the industry concerned, and applied equally to employer and employee. it made an offence of any such disruption in the r.ase of on essential industry. In the present case the men were really making the public the anvil upon which to hammer out their differences. The retort-house employees had'an agreement with the company which terminated on Juno 30. In anticipation , of this a letter was sent on June' 4 to one of the head officials (;f the company asking for better working conditions. On June 18,- Mr. Dougall, on behalf of 'the qompany, forwarded, a letter in reply, in which it was stated that the demands of the men- could not be granted, and pointing out the concessions already made by the ; company. On June 23 the company received notices from the men of their inten&sn to cease work at the end of U day's. The attention of the Court was drawn to the similarity of the phrasing and style of the notices, pointing to concerted action. On June 27 the employers held a conference with the men, "and it was suggested that they should extend their notices for a further week. After a short conference among themselves the men intimated that they would not extend their notice. This again pointed to concerted action. The demands of the men were later sot forth' in writing, and a separate notice given to each man by the company, pointing out why the demands could not be granted. On ,Tuly| 5 a regulation was made by the 'loverrior-Gcneral-in-Conneil declaring the manufacture of coal gas an essential is-dus-try, and this had been pointed out to the men. . >

Archibald Dougall, general manager and engineer of the company's verks, who was called to give produced correspondence regarding the negotiations carried out between the men and the company. He saw -the men on July i at the works, when the conditions vern discussed. Most of the demands made by the men were entirely new The spokesman for Hie -111011— T. J r o;s— snid they would stick to "the terms of their notice if tlioiv demands γ-ere not granted. The attention of Moss wa« drawn to the fact that (lie tffis industry had been declared an essential industrv Hie men lelt on the expiry of their notices, and this made it a" difficult tusk to keep the simply of gas going.. Cross-examined, witness stated tlitwelve months ago a body of men loft the employ of the company, and on ihut account the men wore given i.otice by the company. Apart from the fact tha't the industry was an essontial one the men were doing nothing outside their legal rights. It wn? a (: the suggestion of 'the company that the industry was gazetted as' essential.

Frederick Wilson, inspector of factories also'gave, evidence: . '

the Defence, ' ** Mr. CntesaMaiil tlio defence w«vs-(l) Iflat tlio gftzettuig ul : tho induslry us essential on July 5 did not apply to rlnv - act chai-geii ami alleged to \>b i> (2) that ll the regulation diii apply to the lads of the particular case, no offence had been committed in coiUravention thereof because of the abswiw of guilty knowleilge. Jle. di-erf- uttenlion to tlm Police Offences Act. l>loß, .Section il of which provided that: persons working in ■■•' 1 the employ of a local authority supplying a borough with gae might not leave their eniployniont without giving due • notice, sufficient to prevent the public being, deprived of supplies. Such due notice ivae prescribed as fourteen days. Combination and agreement were mentioned in the section quoted, mid it amounted to this that ,=o long as dlie ' notice .were given, even if the men left in combination, thoy were quite within their' rights in terminating- their employment. The merits of the particular dispute hrtd no reference (<i the question before the Court at all. Section 9 cf the iirbitratiou Act Amendment Act, Ifoß, provided that if any person engaged in the gas industry left without fourteen days' notice he was liable to a fine. If ho gave fourteen days' notice ..and terminated his engagement within a month that constituted an offence. Neither of these sections would have any application if the men were bound by an award of tlie Arbitration Court. But they were not a party to any award. The effect of the statute ,wae that so long as the notice prescribed therein was given no ofi'ence vn< -committed. The only question at issue really was whether the lcgaLposition was altered by the War Regulations gazetted on July 5. He submitted that it. had not been altered. The War in question could not affect the legal position of the men, seeing that pursuant to their statutory rights thoy had given notice ten or twelve days before the War Regulation was issued. Tho regulation was :s----sued obviously at thfr instance of the company as a kind of drag-net |o dc-privo the men of their legal rights, but it had no retrospective action. If the Magistrate hold that th; men had committed an offeuce, he ( hoped that all the circumstances would be taken in to consideration. The'men lad acted in good faith, and if they were found to have committed en offerico ho hoped a light penalty would l>e infiicled. Mr. Meredith in Reply. ' j Mr. Meredith referred to Seotion 5 of the Wnr • Regulations Act; 191*, "which provided that no regulation should be Seemed invalid because it dealt with any matter provided for by existing statutes or was repugnant to them. The intention clearly was tlmt power must bo taken to deal with such matters in an emergency. Tlie virtue of the Act was its absolute paramountcy over any other legislation on the Statute Book. Any regulation brought into force had to be read by itself, and could have nothing rend into it that happened to be in any other statute With regard to guilty knowledge, the wording of, the section was perfectly plain. A seditious strike meant any strike which was intended or had a tendency to interfere _ with the industry.--Clearly it was an offence to do anything tending to have jr thnt effect. Tho meji' acted voluntarily, i and the action had a tendency to inter- jj fere with tho' putpu , :. and clearly came g within the meaning of the seotion. It 1 m-w tnio that the Gazette was not is- | sued till after the notices had lw.ii fj "iven, but 'in continuing tho nosition | after the Gnwtre was issued the men S committed an offence, ft misdit be thnt.. they were misled os to their l'"rnl position. Bur the '>«' M cf H-'.- ?ond faith would be if it were brought home to them that they had committed an offence to see what pttilude they would adopt. Sentence, mio-lit be nostpo-icd to | sen whether the strtcnicnfc made by i counsel that fro mnn acted in good j faith was well founded. _ _ | The jtfnpstrarc reserved hi= decision. j The True British Snirit. GILBEY'S DRY GIN. Its Quality is unsurpassed. j For Chronic Chest Complaints, | Wood's Great Peppermint Care.* to