PARTY TO A STRIKE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 123, 26 May 1945, Page 8

PARTY TO A STRIKE

GAS EMPLOYEE FINED

SUCCESSFUL TEST CASE

P.A. AUCKLAND, May 25. "No matter how right their cause may be, men will never win through by taking the law into their own hands-", said Mr. J. H. Luxford, .S.M., when giving judgment against an employee of the Auckland Gas Company, Albert E. Davis, for being a party to a strike contrary to the provisions of the Strikes and Lockouts Emergency Regulations and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. A fine of £3 was imposed and defendant was ordered to pay costs totalling £2 12s.

The defendant was one of 53 employees of the gas company against whom informations were sworn by Mrs. Manktelow, president of the Housewives Association, following a strike at the company's retort house between April 26 and 28. The case was regarded as a test for the informations against the other defendants.

Mr. Alderton appeared for the informants and Mr. Haigh for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Aldertoh said the public was left without gas from Thursday till Sunday as a result of the strike. The only information the public had was that the strike was a protest against the direction of the industrial manpower committee of two retort-house workers. Mr. Alderton quoted various provisions of the emergency regulations regarding strikes and lockouts. He said the purpose of the action was to inquire what rights, if any, the citizens of Auckland had to prevent a repetition of an intolerable state of affairs.

"The position is one of more than topical interest," said Mr. Haigh. "One would gather from statements by the gas company and by the reports that have appeared in the Press that the men are to blame. The trouble has been due almost entirely to mismanagement by the company."

WHY NOT A PUBLIC INQUIRY? N Mr. Luxford: Why are these matters not brought before a public inquiry?

• Mr. Haigh said he agreed that there should be such an inquiry which, if held would show the men's contentions were correct.

"This is the culmination of a matter of. great concern to the public and a matter in which the public has had to pay a very big price," said Mr. Luxford, in giving judgment for informant. "It is always easy when men go on strike to castigate them without considering that there may be something in the men's point of view. In any such undertaking as a gas works the possibility of strikes has been carefully guarded against by legislation because of the disasters which might occur if the men did strike.

"What appears to be important is the allegation that the trouble has been caused by the antiquated machinery of the gas works and the mismanagement of the company," continued Mr. Luxford. "It is not, of course, the concern of the Court with either of these matters, which have not been proved. It may be so or it may not be so. If there is justification, it is time these matters were inquired into by a qualified tribunal for the benefit of the longsuffering people of Auckland."

Mr. Luxford said there appeared to have been investigation after investigation, but they had all been held in private. The public had been kept completely in the dark. There was a tendency to do things behind closed doors, but it was important to have such investigations conducted openly to safeguard the democratic way of life. It was particularly unfortunate that the strike had taken place as a protest against the decision of a properly constituted tribunal. The courts and tribunals had to be maintained if there was not going to be a crack in the system.

After the Magistrate had given his decision Mr. Alderton said he was prepared to withdraw a second information brought against defendant under the Police Offences Act, 1927. The remaining cases were formally adjourned till June 13.