WHARF OVERTIME

Grey River Argus, 20 May 1938, Page 10

WHARF OVERTIME

74 MEN FINED FOR NOT WORKING IT. [Per Press Association.! WELLINGTON, May 19. The failure of men to work overlive on the “Port Campbell,” in January, formed the basis of proceedings taken by the New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association for a breach of the award, and, in the case of J. A. Dooley, heard recently, a penalty of £1 was imposed. To-day, 73 men were charged b efore Mr Luxford, S.M., /as the outcome of the proceedings,’ and a similar penalty was imposed on each. It was stated for the prosecution that all the men had been served, except five, and it is understood, that, in order, to save another attendance at Court, the defendants were prepared to accept service for the other live men. Counsel further said that Dooley’s case had been taken first, to save bringing all of the men to Court on one day, and the case was taken as a test. As the defendants had admitted the breach, and had not put the prosecution to any expense, he was instructed not to ask for costs.

Mr R. Hardie Boys, for the men, said that plaintiffs brought one case only. If they failed in that, they lost one. If they succeeded, they claimed £74. They laid odds of 74 to one. He submitted that the defendants, having saved the Court any trouble and difficulty, the Court should make the penalty only nominal Plaintiffs were introducing 73 more pinpricks into the situation.

Counsel objected to the word “pinpricks,” and the word was withdrawn by Mr Boys, after counsel for the prosecution had again stated that one case was taken originally because it was not considered right or proper to take 74 men from the wharf on one day. Mr Luxford remarked that more had been said that morning than was necessary, much more. Those who had committed the breach must receive the same punishment as in Dooley’s case.