WATERFRONT TEST CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXV, Issue 3, 1 December 1944, Page 2

WATERFRONT TEST CASE

LIGHT PENALTY IMPOSED

(Press Assn.) WELLINGTON, Pec. 1. Judgment was given by Mr J. L. Stout,. S.M., in the Magistrate's Court today, in the case of James Henry Bigg's, oji a charge that oil October 11 lie was a party to a strike in that, being a worker in the employ of the Waterfront Commission at Wellington, he discontinued his employment with other employees of the commission. Biggs was one of 408 men originally charged and his prosecution was a test case.

The facts of the case were not in dispute, said the Magistrate. The conditions under which labour was employed were embodied in an order of the Waterfront Commission dated June 6, 1940, and amendments under paragraph 17A, by which he was required to finish any job for which he was engaged. On October 11 defendant's union called a stop-work meeting which it was entitled to do. The meeting, however, instead of terminating at 10 a.m. in accordance with the time limit imposed by the order of June 6, 1940, went on till 3.10 p.m. Notice had been given to an official of the commission after the meeting started that it would go on after lunch, no exception being taken to this, but no express permission was asked for or granted. "As it is customary for all work on the wharves'to cease during a stopwork meeting, I would suggest that where a meeting is likely to exceed the limit the union should ask for an extension of-time, and this should not bo refused by the commission if the request is reasonable under the circumstances," said the Magistrate. After the meeting, the men, instead of returning to work until 9 p.m., decided on the orders of the union not to work until the following morning. Some argument took place as to who was defendant's exact employer. The Magistrate thought it immaterial to decide the question, but in his opinion the amployer was the Waterfront Commission, which found the labour for the shipping company, made the requisition, collected from the shipping company, and paid the workers. Quoting the statutory definition of a strike, the Magistrate said all the elements were present in this case and defendant must be convicted. He was of the opinion, however, that the offence was a very venial one. The extension of the meeting was excusable, and, in view of the important issues to bo explained to the men, was necessary. A full explanation might have the effect of preventing an outbreak of any serious trouble on the waterfront. The excuse, however, given for not working between 3.10 p.m. and 9 p.m., that it might have been suggested that the meeting had only been Extended in order that the men should obtain overtime rates, had in his opinion no validity and was certainly no legal excuse. However, the time lost was not very substantial, and that the work was not particularly urgent was shown bv the fact that no special call was made on Labour Day (October

23) although the ship was still loading. As this was in the nature of a test case a nominal penalty would meet the case. Defendant was fined £2 and ordered to meet the costs. The other prosecutions were again adjourned, the Crown indicating that these might be withdrawn.