ALLEGED STRIKE

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25051, 15 November 1944, Page 6

ALLEGED STRIKE

.WELLINGTON CASE

COURT RESERVES r DECISION (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday Expressing pleasure at the-way union officials had given their evidence, Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., said at the hearing of the test case against James Henry Biggs, one of the 402 watersiders charged with being a party to a strike, that the disclosure of all the facts had put a different complexion on what might have been regarded as a grave strike. Counsel's addresses dealt with the question whether the Waterfront Control Commission or the union was the defendant's employer. Mr Ongley, for the defendant, said it was not proved that the commission was tho employer. If the defendant believed the union was his employer, he had committed no offence. Mr Cunningham, who appeared for the inspector of factories, contended that it was immaterial who was the actual employer, and said there was a concerted move which resulted in the stoppage. . The magistrate said it seemed to him that the commission was tho employer, but it was not very clear. It was a pity the Supreme Court decision as to who was the actual employer had not been kno<wn to # the hearing of this case. He reserved his decision.