STRIKERS CLAIM WAGES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19149, 15 October 1925, Page 14

STRIKERS CLAIM WAGES

SUIT AGAINST COMPANY. CREW OF THE RUAHINE. JUDGMENT AGAINST MEN. ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME. [by telegraph.—OWN correspondent.] ■WELLINGTON. Wednesday. A novel claim was made by 72 sailors, all formerly members of the Ruahine's crew but now on strike, against the New Zealand Shipping Company and Captain Smith, master of the vessel, in the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Mr. W. G. Eiddeil, S.M., was asked to break their ship's articles, and at the same time make an order for wages to be paid up to the present time. Mr. T. Scott, who appeared for the men, said the case was a most unusual one, and came under the Merchant Shipping Act, section 168. As a matter of fact, he doubted if such proceedings had ever been taken before. At the same time he claimed that the men were entitled to what they asked. Under the circumstances the articles which bound them to the ship should no longer be held, as the boat had gone away and left them stranded. "These men are in a very sad plight indeed," went on counsel. "They have nothing and are, all here in a strange city on their own. J believe the police if they desired could make some arrangements to have ' them deported. Still, for the moment, I will not bring that subject up at all. These men left their ship without 1 leave and the Ruahine sailed without them. The company could have prosecuted them had it desired. For some, reason it took no action and the men decided to go back to work. Refused to Sign Paper. "Then they approached the company and were told they would be, taken back on condition a paper was signed saying they would work the boat. This they refused to do, as the ship's articles they had signed 'prior to joining were worded to the same effect. There was really no difference in the two papers. The company 'said: ' Very well, we will not take you back until you sign this paper.' The men then went, away. " Then the Ruahine left for Auckland," said counsel, "and these men were all alone, out of work and on their own. As the boat is now on her way to England the position is very difficult. They cannot show a ship's discharge, and it is no easy task for them (o obtain employment. For that reason ! ask that in all fairness the men have the articles rescinded, and as they were in the company's employ that they be paid wages up to the time the articles are removed." Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who represented the company and the master of the ship, ssid it was not a question of the men i leaving the ship. The men were law breakers. They were absent without leave, but the company did not, prosecute them, as could have been the case. When they went back they refused to sign a | paper, and it was their own fault, whatj ever happened. Knowing that nothing I could be done to help them out of the j difficulty in which they had placed them- ] selves some, genius among them sug- | gested their return. Yet, they all knew jat the time, that the Ruahine was in | Auckland. Should Have Gone to Auckland. Under the Shipping Act these men should have gone to Auckland and joined the ship. They had deserted her and itwas their business to return, but they did not do that. Instead, they waited until she was no longer in port, and then offered to return. The company was very willing to take them back. Mr. Turrell, j the acting Dominion shipping superinj tendent of the company, offered every inducement to return. All the company required was a note to the effect that they would work the ship. Of course, the articles suggested the same thing, but the articles were broken by the, men, who were simply law breakers. For that reason he asked that matters stand as they were. It, was the fault, of the men, and they alone were responsible. No claim could be made bv law under the Merchant Shipping Act, especially under such circumstances, by law breakers such as these." Mr, Riddell said that the claim was a very novel one and probably the first, of its kind in New Zealand. If it were a case of ordinary seamen being left alone through** their ship being wrecked, or burned, or some other unfortunate episode, it would be different. With a thing like, that one could understand an application for wages being brought before the Court. "But here," went on the magistrate, "we have a claim of men who ad mit they left, the ship without leave, and now. after having been given an opportunity to rejoin on condition that they sign a thing which the articles contain, they refuse to do so. All that they were asked to do was to sign on a.s under the articles, and take their ship to. sea. These duties would have been in the articles had they rejoined, as that is what they signed on in the first, place for. Now the application they bring before the Court not only asks that the articles be rescinded, but that they shall he paid wages up to date as well. I think it would be just, as well in such | a case as this to study the old principle in the law of equity, which says that a man who seeks equity must do equity for it. It seems that the applicants have made a claim without any thought of the contract they signed. The men really only have themselves to blame. A contract, of this kind is no different, from any other contract. If either party breaks it they have their own remedy. It amounts to the fact that the men themselves have broken the contract, and are responsible for their position. Before people come to Court, over a contract they should live up to if. This the men have failed to do. I cannot agree with the claim, and must therefore refuse the application and leave things as they are."