FREEZING WORKS STRIKE.

Grey River Argus, 21 July 1922, Page 7

FREEZING WORKS STRIKE.

THE PROSECUTIONS. UNIONISTS FINED. (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, July 20. Judgment was given to-day in the Magistrate’s Court in the case in which the Inspector of Awards claimed from G-eorgo Collister, freezing works hand, and Wiliam Chaney, slaughterman, both employees of the North Canterbury Freezing Works, Kaiapoi, the sum of £lO as a penalty for taking part in ah unlawful strike. The Magistrate found that the cessation of work at the Norin Canterbury Freezing’ Works on .Tunc 13 constituted an illegal strike. Collister was fined £2, and Chaney £5. TWO WORKERS FINED. THE MAGISTRATE’S JUDGMENT. CHRISTCHURCH, July 20. “T find, after careful consideration of the evidence, that the cessation or work at the North Canterbury Freezing Works at Kaiapoi on. June 13, did constitute an illegal strike, and that George Collister and William Chaney wore parties to the said strike.” This was the judgment given by Mr Wyvern

Wilson, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning in the case in which the Inspector of Awards. Air Fielder, claimed, from George Collistcr, freezing works hand, and William Chaney, slaughterman, employees of the North Canterbury Freezing Works, Kaiapoi, under section 6 of the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act, 1908, for the sum of £lO as a penalty for taking part in an unlawful strike. In. the case of Fielder v. Collister, the Magistrate said it was alleged against the defendant that, being bound by the Canterbury District Freezing Works and Related Trades Employees Award, ho became party to a strike. Defendant was a freezing works hand, in the employ of the North Canterbury Sheepfarmers’ Freezing Works, Kaiapoi. which was a party to the award of 1921. I: was contended on behalf of the defendant that the cessation of work on June 13 did not constitute an unlawful strike, and, further, that even if it did, the defendant did not leave the works with any intention that would bring him under the penal clause of Section 6. It was stated the defendant had been intimidated into leaving the works by other men, and it did seem singular that he was the last man to leave off work. “After careful consideration, of the evidence,” said Mr Wilson, “I find that the Executive at Kaiapoi Works did constitute an illegal strike, and I find the reason why the men stopped work was that the Company had elected to reduce wages, in aecdA' *.nce with a pronouncement made by t\. Arbitration. Court for a reduction of the bonus. The Company had given notice that wages were to bo reduced, and the men ceased work in order to bring pressure to bear on them so that they would not give effect to the Court’s pronouncement.” He found there had been concerted action on the part of the workers. They held meetings, and as a result of tlrese meetings, the men had gone out on strike, thus causing loss and inconvenience to the employers. Collister was the last man to leave the Works, but Ih-ere was nothing to justify him in doing so. He alleged he had been intimidated, and, if this was so ho should have informed his employers of the circumstances before going out. He was the last man to leave. The question of a penalty was one which required consideration. It was a. matter of grave importance, for there was an industry employing hundreds of men in an essential work, under conditions and rates of pay wnich had been fixed by the law of the land. These rates of pay had been reduced, and the men. must have realised that any opposition was equivalent to flying in the face of the law. Collister was certainly not an agitator or a prime mover in the strike, but ho should not have been swayed by other men. It was to his credit that he had stayed out till the last, but still his action deserved censure, and ho would bo fined £2. In the case against Chaney, the Magistrate said the circumstances were different, for he had gone out with the main body of those striking. Ho would be fined £5.