AN UNLAWFUL STRIKE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15004, 28 May 1912, Page 7

AN UNLAWFUL STRIKE.

GISBORNE BUTCHERS FINEDBREACH OF ARBITRATION ACT. • fBT TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.] j Gisborne, Monday. As a sequel to the recent butchers' strike in Gisbome 18 tradesmen were arraigned before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., for failing to give the necessary notice prior to the strike. The charge against each man read as follows :—" That on March 26 be- ' ing a person employed in an industry for the supply of meat for domestic consumption within the meaning of section 9 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, he did strike without having given to his employer notice in i writing of his intention to do so." An interesting point, concerning the charges is that they were the first in Now Zealand under the section providing for (Special penalties with respect to strikes and lock-outs in certain specified industries, including that of tho slaughter or supply of meat for domestic consumption. Nina of the aroused pleaded guilty. Inspector Weitbrook, who prosecuted, briefly outlined the facts of the case. Previous to the day of the strike members of the Gisborne branch of the Auckland Butchera' Union met the employers in conference,, and agreed upon certain terms of an agreement. The employers refused certain clauses, and would not sign the agreement. On March 26 the employers received the following notice from the union:—"The Gisborne branch of the Auckland Butchers' Union hereby gives due notice that if the agreement agreed on at the conference be not signed by three p.m. on Tuesday, March 26, all the men will ceaso work until the agreement is signed." The notice was signed by G. Knight, secretary. After hearing evidence, on© case was dismissed, and on Inspector Westbrook's application three cases were withdrawn. The cases of the nine who pleaded guilty were then called. Mr. Burnard, for tho defence, pleaded for a nominal penalty, because the offences had been committed greatly in ignorance of the law, excepting, perhaps, in the case of Knight, whom the inspector held lie had acquainted with the law on the matter. Inspector Weat brook said he had informed Knight of the provision of the Act, an d was satisfied that the defendant knew tho section thoroughly. His Worship said the act of these offenders resulted in serious losses, and inconvenience to employers. Substantial penalties should bo imposed, and particularly in cases where tho law was broken • with knowledge. In tho case of Knight a penalty of £10 would be imposed, and the other offenders would be fined £3. Costs (7s) would be allowed in each of the cases.