RIVAL UNIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16040, 5 October 1915, Page 4

RIVAL UNIONS.

GREYMOUTH WATERSIDERS. ARBITRATION COURTS DECISION. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION-] Gretmocth, Monday. A sequel to the 1913 strike concerning conflicting interests of the two watersiders' unions in Greymouth was submitted to the Arbitration Court sitting here in' the middle of September last. The facts of the case from the Magistrate's Court showed' that the plaintiff union was registered under the Arbitration Act of 1889, and in 1913 was working under a Court- award, the term of wnich expired at - the end of January, 19i4. Three months prior to its expiry the union struck, in common with other waterside unions in the . Dominion, and continued a strike till December 16, 1913, when it was resolved to resume work, notice of such desire being served on the skipping companies. Meanwhile another union was formed, its registration being accepted by the registrar on December 18, notwithstanding that . the old union protested by telegraph before, the date of registration of the new union. The new ' union continued work * under practically the same conditions as the old union's award until February 3, 1914, when an industrial agreement between the new ■ union and the shipping companies was made three days after the expiring of the old award. The questions for the Court were: — (a) The plaintiff union having struck, is their award of March, 1913, still valid and binding on the parties? / t (b) Has a breach of award been committed by the defendants or the shipping . companies Union's Breach of '-Award. The Court held that when the memi bers of the old union went out on strike "• I they destroyed, the fundamental basis of j the award, having repudiated their obligations and surrendered the rights ■ and ; privileges provided by the award-; By | striking, the old union not only committed j a breach of the Act, for which penalties J were provided individually as well as coli lectively, but compelled employers to find v otber workers, and entitled them to enter i into an industrial agreement with a new union, which had been lawfully registered and was prepared to do the work. Old Agreement Superseded. In regard to plaintiff's claim that its members were prepared to do the work \ j before the new union was actually V I registered, also that its award then again j became operative, the Court drew a simile i of the action of the Germans as regards '' an international treaty being binding only j when it suited" their own purposes. -"'lf ; such views of an award were upheld it would be absolutely destructive of industrial morality and cood faith. The Court found nothing in the Act to justify the contention that the claims were within the union's legal rights, pointing out that t penalty clauses for striking did not appear ! to deal with the relative rights of parties j when a strike occurred, but merely preI scribed penalties. The plaintiff union, i having deliberately repudiated the award jbv striking, the essrntipl object of the Act, had forfeited all ri<rht to invoke : the award for the benefit of ite members. I The Court wps further of opinion that, under sub-section 1, section 90. of the principal Act, providing for awards con- ' tinning in force until a new' :>.wa*-d i* ' made, the Industrial agreement with the* new union of February 3 superseded and put an end to the old union's award v of March, 1913.