[PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHARGE AGAINST WATERSIDE WORKERS' UNION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 79, 2 April 1912, Page 4

[PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHARGE AGAINST WATERSIDE WORKERS' UNION.

SEQUEL TO A STRIKE. AUCKLAND, Ist April. The case brought by th« .Labour Department against the Auckland Waferside Workers' Union in connection with the strike in November last wag continued before Mf. Kettle, S.M., to-day. The case for the defendant union was that the men engaged were required to handle superphosphates, basic filag, and pebbke, which, formed part of the cargo of the steamer Paparoa. In the case of superphosphates, it appeared that in consequence o* the maritime strike in London bags containing this form of manure or fertiliser had been lying about the docks in London for some time, and. when the cargo arrived iv Auckland and was opened oufc the phosphates were found to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. They spoke, to Captain Proassr {who was in charge of the cargo discharging operations), and, according to the men's version pf the matter, the captain agreed' -that the cargo was in bad condition. He added' that he would see if he could get Wbat is .-known as "dirt money" for them, whicji meant extra payment for handling of.'objecUonable cargo. It ' was admitted on "Mjoth sides that itheye was no real' contract in regard to waiei?>ids \woykfrs 'and their employer*, although the work was carried out qnder the^ award, of 'the Court. The employers claimed .the, right to employ aiiy member of the union and to discharge peremptorily any -man; for miaconduqfr, or for airy- valid re&spn-,-~t>ut there was no compulsion on either side. f for if men choose to stay aw^.y after 'the first day's, work employers could not compel them .to -continue "work until completion of the., job. At the, conclusion of tih« evidence for the informant, Mr. Way asked that' the case should be dismissed on the ground that the information disclosed no offence. There « r a® no contract, and thegje wa# jio .pereohi who was guilty of attempting to incite an " unlawful strike," and therefore there was no case to answer. Moreover, there Shad nqfc been any strike at ( all, nor yet any definite breach of contract. 1 His Worship 'decided that a prima facie case had been made out. and was inclined to the opinion that what had been done amounted to a strike. Evidence was then taken at consider- , able length in' support of the union's position. It was mentioned by Mi*. Way •that the whole-amount In dispute in this case was 355. After prolonged argument, his ,Worship reserved his decision. He said there seemed to be two question* for decision ; (1) Whether there was an unlawful strike! and |2) •whether it had been proved on evidence that this, industrial union incited," -< instigated, aided or abetted a strike or tine continuance of a strike. . ' '