LABOUR DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 52, 2 March 1934, Page 12

LABOUR DISPUTE

TROUBLE ON WHARF

WATERSIDERS IN COURT

After an all-day hearing in the Magistrate's Court yesterday the case in which the ■'■Inspector, of Awards is. proceeding ayaiust fifty-nine Wellington uaterside workers was adjourned until this afternoon, no witnesses for the defenco having then been heard. The inspector claims from each of the men a penalty of &o, alleging that they took part in an unlawful strike. The beginning of the case was reported in yesterday's "Post." . ; Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., was the Magistrate. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey and the Inspector of Awards, Mr. J. Georgeson, appeared for the Labour Department, aud Mr. J. Roberts and Mr. J. O. Johnson for the men. Additional evidence against the men was given by Ashton James NayJor, head stevedore of the New Zealand Shippiug Company, Captain Alexander Black, head stevedore of the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, and Hugh Andrew McLe'od, contractor and stevedore. SUBMISSIONS FOR DEFENCE. In his submissions for the defence Mr. Eoberts agreed that the men concerned were members of the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union, which was bound by an industrial agreement for repair work, but not, he submitted, by any agreement for the work of loading and discharging ships. He agreed that the men were engaged on the Orari, but not that they were engaged to finish the ship. He agreed also that on February 6, 7, and 8 the foreman notified the men to work overtime, but he held that they were perfectly entitled under the circumstances to refuse to work overtime, and. that the action of one of the employer's agents "'as the principal cause of the men's refusal. In refusing to work overtime, the men did not commit a breach of any law. Mr. Roberts denied that the wharf men acted collectively, but admitted that they individually' demanded to be paid for the same time as the workers on the ship. In so doing they were following the custom usual lv adopted. Mr. Roberts said he was instructed that the Federal .Company was the only company that attempted to [ pay the men on the wharf less than the | men on the ship. Ho agreed that occasionally, for special reasons, the men on the wharf were paid less than the men on the ship. . . ' j Replying to the statement that the employer had suffered financial loss ■ Mr. Roberts contended that through | the action of the employer the men concerned had suffered financial loss, and the- employer was certainly as guilty as the men of any breach of contract, whether agreed to or implied. Ho. denied that tho men, by th enaction, had created a dispute within tho meaning of the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, under "which the proceedings, were brought, i Mr. Roberts dealt.at length with the legal aspect, of the case.