INCITING A STRIKE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 150, 25 June 1912, Page 7

INCITING A STRIKE

WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE? MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD OR "SECRETARY? On 31efc January, Dr. A. M* Arthur, S.M., convicted the Wellington Merchant Service Guild of instigating, during the months of September and October, 1911, certain officers employed by persons, firms, and companies, set out in an award of the Arbitration Court, dated 18th September, 1911, to become parties to an unlawful etrike, and inflicted a fine of £100, the maximum being £200. His Worship held that if a majority of the members of the guild were partie* to the strike, then it should be deemed in law to have instigated the strike, and should not be allowed to dispute the fact. The telegrams put in proved the secretary's action fn aiding and abetting an unlawful strike, and his action implicated the union. Against this decision, the guild appealed to the Arbitration Court to-day. Mi*. A. L. Herdtnan appeared for appellant, and Mi-. H- H. OdJer for respondent. Mr. Herdman's principal contention ■was t ' Assuming there wan a etrike, there was no evidence that the union as a union instigated it. A perusal of the evidence, hff submitted, would prove that the union itself took no part in the strike (assuming that there was one), although ifc might be that tie secretary i took an active part. Mr. Justice Sim : He eeems to have done so. Mr. Herdman: Yes. The telegrams that were put in do not implicate the union. A union, to bo guilty of an offence, must act in accordance with its rales and it must- hold a meeting, and there had been no action of the union to instigate a strike. The total membership vrus 279, and it would ba wrong to attack ite funds if the secretary, of hie own volition, actively took part in instigating a strike. After conferring with liis colleagues for 6 few minutes, his Honour 6aid: "The impression we have at present is that .there is nothing to make the union responsible. W* will hear Mr. Ostler on tie subject." Mr. Herdman ateo said that under the Act a union was held liable for a. strike if the majority of its members were involved. In this case in a membership of 270 only about 35 oeased work. After reading Captain Watson'a telegrams, argued Mr. Ostler, one could not doubt that he incited the strike. The question he had to meet, was whether the union was bound by the action of the secretary, and his submission was that there waa sufficient evidence- of authorisation ie involve the onion. If the executive, or a majority of those appointed to carry on the affairs of a corporation, had knowledge of acte carried out by one of its executive officers, and consented, either expressly or impliedly, to those actions, then the corporation was responsible for those actions. It ■was only necessary to prove that an officer or the corporation, purporting to act on its behalf, did an act which instigated the strike. That threw on the corporation the onus of proof that the acte of the officer had not been authorised by the executive. "Why," asked Ms Honour, "were proceedings not taken against Captain Watson?" Mr. Ostler said it was simpler to proceed against the guild, because it -was thought there was sufficient prima facie evidence to bind the guild. His Honour : 'The advisers of the La- , boor Department ndust have .known that it was much harder to convict the union. Mr. Ostler : The advisers of the "department considered, and still consider, that there wae sufficient evidence to make a case against the union. - It was unbelievable, Mr. Ostler continued, that Captain Watson should not show letters and replies ■- to the executive. His Honour said the difficulty was to prove- that the executive and the secretary contrived to instigate the strike or had ratified what had been done. Without euch evidence there could be no conviction. "Then, the law i« a dead letter," said Mr. OBtler, referring to the great difficulty of getting such evidence. "Not at all," responded his Honour. Mr.l Ostler: You can never make a corporation liable. In expressing a different view, his Hoaonr referred counsel to the general labourers' strike. The Court intimated that it did not desire to hear Mr. Herdman in reply just then, but would intimate the fact U, him if it wished to do so. The matter would be considered in the meantime.