SHIPWORKERS' STRIKE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9620, 28 March 1917, Page 7

SHIPWORKERS' STRIKE

A UNION PROSECUTED NOMINAL* fine OF X2 imposed. The Wellington Boilermakers’ and Ship Builders’ Union was proceeded against in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., by the Inspector of Awards (Mr G. H. Lightfoot) for inciting certain workers employed by J. J. Niven and Co., Ltd., and Ross, Jory and McWbannell, to become parties to an unlawful strike in December ar.d January last, the workers in question being at the commencement of the strike bound by an Arbitration Court award. On behalf of defendant union Mr P. J. U’Eegan entered a plea of guilty. For tiie prosecution Mr Daghgfoot said that the secretary of the defendant union had written to the Wellington Ironmasters’ Association stating that unless a war bonus was granted the union would refuse to allow Ms members to be lent to other employers. Following on this two local firms had lout some of their men to the Patent Slip Company, and at the expiration of the notice given by the union the workers had stopped working for the Patent Slip Company and had returned to their original employers, who wore, however, unable to find any other work for them at the time. Mr Lightfoot contended that this action of the men constituted an unlawful strike. In reply, Mr O’Regan admitted that there hud technically been a strike within the statutory meaning. He was satisfied, however, the Inspector of Awards was also satisfied, that the breach had been quite unintentional. There was a widespread popular belief that overtime could be proliibited, but the legal position was that overtime could not bo prohibited, even by an award of the Court of Arbitration. All the ebuyt could do was to provide that if overtime were worked a higher rate of payment should be njade. In the present case the union in good faith had endeavoured to induce certain of its members to refuse to work overtime. The men who had discontinued work had certainly become guilty of an unlawful strike, and it was equally a breach of the Act to incite others to do likewise. He submitted, however, that there was a great difference between a strike which had been deliberately entered into and one which the participants did not think was a strike. Though the inspector bad claimed a penalty of JJ200,. he was now quite satisfied that the breach was unintention, al, and under the circumstances counsel submitted that the case would be fully met by tho imposition of a nominal penalty. The Magistrate remarked that the union should have made itself aware of the legal position before taking the action it had. He considered that under the circumstances a nomjna] penalty was all that would be imposed. Tho union would be fined £2-