Waterside Workers’ Award

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 78, 16 March 1923, Page 5

Waterside Workers’ Award

AN ALLEGED BREACH. SECRETARI S CASE ADJOUURNED SINE DIE. After non-suiting the Inspector of Awards in Ins claim lor a penalty of £lOO against the Napier \V atersiders’ Union lor an alleged breach of the award, at the Napier Magistrate’s Court, Mr. R. W. Byer, S.M., holding that it would be better to wait lor the Arbitration Court’s decision, adjourned Ithe case against J. B. Pullen, tlie secretary oi the union, irom whom the inspector also claimed a penalty of £lOO. The charge against th© union was that it hail committed a breach of section HO of th© Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908, by taking proceedings, between February 5 and Femruary 12, with the intention of defeating tlie provisions of clause 4a of the award by deciding to cease work at certain times. Tlie secretary was charged with being a party to a breach of the award because he imposed certain restrictions by which overtime should cease at certain definite hours or times. The first charge was laid under tlie Act, and the second under clause 49a of the watersiders’ award, winch reads as follows:—

“No restrictions shall be imposed, either by the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Industrial Federation or the respective unions, whereby overtime work shall cease at 10 p.m, or at any other hour, and no restrictions relating to overtime work shall be permitted to be made during the currency of this award; and further, the executive of the union, and the executive of th© N.Z. Ayaterside Workers’ Federation shall at all times do all that is reasonably possible to secure that any member thereof without work will accept any work offered to him which is of th© kind usually taken by such worker, and that every member thereof shall carry out his obligations to the employer.” A DIFFERENT CHARGE. Mr. Ooddington. the Inspector, in opening the cas© against the secretary, said that it would be admitted that the men ceased work in accordance with uii© resolution. Mr. Roberts: No; we do not admit that. The claim is covered by the decision in this morning’s case. If the union, with the best intentons. possible, carried this resolution, then it should not b© held to be an offence under section HO of the Act. Th© Magistrate: No; tliis morning’s harg© wag under section 110, but this charge is under a different section. Air. Roberts: The plaintiff must prove then that the reason why the men ceased work was because of the resolution. I submit that some proof will hav© to be adduced that the resolution induced th© men to ceas© work on these occasions before th© defence is required to call evidence. “A REASONABLE INFERENCE.” Mr Ooddington: Where there is reasonable inference that the resolution was put into effect. There is evidence to the effect that, previous to these occasions, the men had worked on after hours mentioned in tho resolution.

The Magistrate': You have to show that the union placed a restriction by which the men ceased work. That is your case. Mr. Ooddington: I submit that the resolution and the inference that the men acted on that resolution are sufficient on that point. Th© Magistrate: You must show that. Mr. Ooddington: W© can show that only by inference. Naturally, we cannot get the men to admit it. The Magistrate: Still you nave to take into account th© actions and tenor of the men’s conduct' as in the former case. Th© resolution provides that th© men would cease work at 10 p.m. Mr. Roberts: But we take that en tirely as a notification to the employers in order that they would not be put out in the conduct of their business. It would be unfair for the union to do anything like that without giving due notice. The Magistrate: Y’es. but don’t you believe that the resolution is in contravention of clause 49a of the award ? Mr. Roberts: It appears so, but the men were guided by clauses 49a and 49b taken together. Although the re. solution was carried, the men did not cease work at 10 p.m. and 12 midnight as stated to you. They ceased at all hours, and did not rigidly adhere to th© resolution. 1 hold that the prosecution must prove that the union intended to commit a breach ot th© award. The Magistrate: This case is not brought under section 110, but under claus© 49a of the award. Air Roberts: The ponit I want to make clear is that the prosecution must, prove that the union did instruct the men to cease work at that time, and that th© mon acted on th© resolution. W© can prove that th© men did not so act. 1 believe that it is generally conceded in the Arbitration Court, and in fact in all law cases, that th© men must have a definite intention to commit a breach of the award before they can b e held to have done so Th© Magistrate: I submit that the resolution is a breach of clause 49a, Air. Roberts: It may be a breach oi 49a, but is it a breach of, or is it in keeping with clause 49K? We cannot expect these men to give a correct legal interpretation of the award. The Alagistrate: There is evidence that they did cease work often before the resolution was passed. 1 uiink that th© resolution shows that men would work only on the condition contained in it. Air. Roberts: The men took tL’e resolution simply as a notice to th© emP1 Tlie rS Alagistrate: It is a notice that th© men will work only on these conditions. . . Air Ooddington: Ma? 1 refer your Worship to tlie letter in which Air. Pullen states that th© resolution would be carried out? The Magistrate: Yes, that is straight 11 Roberts: Yes. admittedly; and it seems to b© quite honest on the part of tho men. Although the resolution was carried on the advice of tlie officers of th© union, the men worked on after thes© specified hours except od only two occasions. AIEN NOT NOTIFIED.

The Alagistrate: The men knocked off at 5 p.m. on Saturday. Air Roberts : In connection with that I would refer you to clause 230 of tho award, which provides that, if overtime is to b© worked, the foreman or clerk in charge should notify th© men accordingly. If not notified the men ar© at liberty to knock off and not work. 1 The Alagistrate: Were these men notified ? Mr. Roberts: No.

Air. Ooddington: Alight I point out that these men knocked off when they were working overtime. That argument cannot apply Jiere. Air. Roberts: As this case is going before tlie Arbitration Court and tile National Disputes Committee, no de cision should be given until the decision of one of th© other bodies is known. The Alagistrate: Is this case going to tho Arbitration Court Air, Roberts: Yes; I am positive of that. .

The Alagistrate: Well, it seems to me that the best thing to do is to adjourn this case sine die. Then, as soon as the Court’s judgment is known, the cas© can be brought on again.