STRIKERS IN COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 10 September 1925, Page 5

STRIKERS IN COURT.

ORDERED BACK TO SHIP. SEAMEN FINED AT AUCKLAND. UJY TELEGRAPH —r p BESS ASSOCIATIONAUCKLAND, Sept 9. A case with an important bearing upon the position ol : the seamen on British ships in New Zealand waters who are on strike on account of the reduction of wages, was decided m the Police Court to-day. The master of the overseas steamer Benicia proceeded aaginst eight seame n for being absent, without leave, and also with combining with others to delay the voyage of the vessel. Mr. R. McVeagh appeared for the master and Mr. Vallance represented six of the seamen. Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., was on the bench. Great interest was taken i n the proceedings and the court was crowded with seamen. Mr. Vallance said the men he appeared for pleaded guilty to the charge of absenting themselves from duty. Mr. MoVeagh said the charges were really alternative, and if the. men ad.mitted one he was prepared to withdraw the other. The second charge of helping to retard the progress of the vessel was accordingly withdrawn. Mr. McVeagh said the charges were brought under an Imperial Act. In the agreement under which the men signed on there was a- statement of the wages payable every calendar month. There was also a special clause which set out that the men were bound by any increase or decrease that might be" decided on by the National Maritime Board.

The facts" of the case were that the Benicia arrived at Auckland on August 23 from British ports, via America. Two days later the men did not turn to, and when approached by the chief officer they said they were not prepared to work under the reduced scale of wages. They informed, the master of their decision, and he told them he had no official intimation of a reduction.

They lived on board the vessel until August 29, when all the cargo for Auckland was discharged. Prepara.tions were made to take the vessel out in the stream when the defendants walked ashore; and they had not beeen on hoard since. The captain met them at the shipping office on Sentemher 3, but they remained adamant. Counsel suggested that'it would be proper to ascertain from the men whether they were now perpared to rejoin th© shin. The alternative course was to punish them. Sectibn 224 of the Act provided that they could lie ordered to return to the ship, and section 221 ‘made provision; for fines payable by way of a reduction from wages. ;/■ Mr. Vallance said the facts were admitted Looking at the case from the men’s point of view, they left the ship as a protest against the reduction in wages. They would prefer to be discharged rather than return to the vessel under the reduced scale of wages. He admitted this was not a legal argument. * Mr. MeVeagh: In effect they lhave broken a n agreement which they promised to keep. All of them signed it. Supposing the National Maritime Board increased their wages a pel the shipping companies refused to pay, 1 wjouder” what the men Would have done then? I ask that they be ordered to return to their ship. Mr Vallance pointed out that the, me n on the Benicia were in the unfortunate position of being prosecuted while the men on other ships, were at large. Because the Benicia had Arab firemen who were prepared to continue working, these men were proscuted for going out on strike. The magistrate said the charges against the defendants were, laid down under an Imperial Act, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The charges of retarding the ship had been withdrawn, and defendants had with one exception pleaded guilty to the other charge. In the one case where a plea of not guilty was entered evidence was given and. the defendant would be convicted. Counsel for the defence 'admitted the ' offences were committed in the course of a strike. That, however, was a matter with which tie court would have nothing to do. The defendants would be dealt with in the same way as an individual offender who absented himself from work as these men had done without regard to other matters. The penalties to; which defendants were liable were sfet out in the Act. It provided that the men might lie ordered to forfeit a sum not exceeding two tlavs’ pay, and in addition a further penalty.. net exceeding six da vs’ pay for every twenty-four hours thev remained away from work. Seven of the defendants were ordered to forfeit a sum of 5s for every day, making £2 13s in seven cases and £2 10s i n "the other. An order that the men be placed o n „ board the Benicia was also made, and a further order was made that the, fines should be deducted from the moneys now owing or to be earned b* the cle endants. Solicitor's fees of 7s Gd and court costs is were allowed in each case. The decision resulted in a demonstration at the back of the court. One of the defendants stood up and said he bad no intention of going hack to his shio This remark was greeted with a stifled “hurrah” from his colleagues.