FINED £100.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 26, 31 January 1912, Page 7

FINED £100.

INCITING A STRIKE. CASE OF MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD. A SERIOUS OFFENCE. THE GUILD WILL APPEAL. Tho Wellington Merchant Service Guild has been fined £100 for inciting a strike. Decision to this effect was given by Dr. A. M' Arthur, S.M., to- i day. ' The plaintiff, Mr. E. Le Cren, Inspector of Awards, claimed to recover £200 for an offence under section 6 of the Arbitration Act. The allegation was that, during the months of September and October, 1911, defendant union instigated certain officers employed by various companies to become parties to an unlawful strike. STORY OF THE^ STRIKE. In outlining the history of the rnaitef> his Worship said there had been ». demand by the union for better pay and shorter hours for the officers of the smaller coastal steamers. These demands had been refused by tha Shipowners' Federation. The union then cited owners' before the Conciliation Council, but no agreement was come to. Further, the union cited the owners before the Arbitration Court, which made the award of 18th September, to como into force on 2nd October. The members of tho union were dissatisfied with the award, and on 29th September, three days before it Came into iorce, Captain Watson, secretary of the union, communicated with Mr, Fuller, the shipping manager of Levin and Company, and a member of the federation, asking for a conference with the owners, and intimating that if Che request were not granted, the consequence would be serious. The federation asked for further time, which was not given, and on ,30th September (£he following day) many of the officers gave 24 hours^ notice. Officers continued to gtve notice and did so up to and after 3rd and 4th October, after the award was in force, and without completing their articles. ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENCE. ''Counsel for defendant asked that the information be dismissed," proceeded his Worship. "He first contended that there had oeen no 6trike, inasmuch as it had not been proved that the officers had left their work with the intent to compel ' the shipowners to comply with the demands. The reply to this, as it appears to me, is that the union made certain demands on the owners, which were not conceded. ... In my opinion, the discontinuance of the employment was due to a common understanding and agreement, if not expressed at least implied, made or entered into by the officers. By their action, I think they thus brought themselves within the. terms of section 3, subsection 1 of the Act, which defines & strike. "As his second ground for a dismissal, counsel relied on suDsection 3 of section. 6, which provides that when a strike takes place and a majority of the members of any industrial union or association are at any time parties to the strike, the union shall be deemed to have instigated the strike. He contended that it had not been proved that a majority of the members of the union were at any time parties to the strike. That is so, but I take tne meaning of the sub-section to be that if a majority of the memberi are parties to the strike, then the union shall be deemed injaw to have instigated the strike, and shall i not be allowed to dispute the fact. | WHAT WAS PROVED? '^Counsel's next "ground for dismissal was that it had not been proved that there had been an unlawful strike unaer the provisions of sub-section 4 of section 6. His basis for this is that" some of the officers left their employment before the award came into force. Some certainly did leave before the award came into force, but several left afterwards. In my opinion, those who left previous to_ the award's coming into operation without completing their articles were parties to a strike, and those who left after the award came into force without completing their articles were parties to an unlawful strike. WAS THE UNION IMPLICATED? "Finally, Mr. Herdman contended thai, assuming the secretary did send the telegrams produced in evidence, liis action did not implicate tho union, as the latter could only act in accordance with its rules, and there had been no action of the union t6 instigate a strike. I am of opinion that the telegrams- prove the secretary action in aiding or abetting an unlawful strike, and I am further of opinion that his action implicates the union. He was a trusted executive officer of the union, and in the due performance of his duties the union is bound by hi* acts.' ' His Worship quoted the case of Lumpers v. the London General Omnibus Company as a strong case on this point. It'wa* there held that if the jury believed that the defendant's driver acted recklessly, wantonly, and improperly, bnt in the course of the service and employment and doing that which he believed to be for the interests of defendants, then they were responsible, and that although the "driver acted contrary to his instructions. "in the present case," Dr. M'Arthur said, "the secretary, in sending the telegrams, acted in tho course of his service and employment, and did that which he believed to be for the interest of the union, and I think the union must be held responsible. The offence was a. serious one, and ha 3 caused great pecuniary loss to shipowners. Judgment will bo for plaintiff for £100 and Co6tfi." Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared for the Crown, and Mr. A. L. Herdman for the defendant union. AN APPEAL. Mr. Herdman asked his Worship to fix security for appeal. This was fixed at the amount of the judgment, plus £15. Mr. Herdman told a Post reporter ■ that he would carry, the case on appeal I to the Arbitration Court.