WAS IT A STRIKE?

NZ Truth, Issue 570, 20 May 1916, Page 3

WAS IT A STRIKE?

Petone Woo! Workers' Wrangle Lawyer Wilford on the Labor Department I They Deserved a Medal. j At the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, on Tuesday, before Mr. W. G. J Rlddell, s.M., a case was heard m which xhe Petone (WcJliugior.) Wool- ! len Mills Industrial Unjton of Workers was sued by Henry Ernest Moston, In-; spector of Awards, for the sum of. £ 200, as a penalty for an alleged offence under section 6 of the Industrial | and Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, m that the defendant ."Union did, during the months ' of February and March, 1916, instigate certain workers employed by the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Co., Ltd^ to become parties i TO A CERTAIN STRIKE, the said workers being bound at the commencement of the strike by an \ Award of the Court of Arbitration. ' The plaintiff Inspector was repre- ! sented by Mr. P. S. -JL Macassey, tJie Union being defended by Mr. T. M. Wilford. . -■-..- :■•■.. Mr. Macassey opened by stating that on January 20 last, the secretary: to the union 1 wrote to Mr. Donne, secretary of the Wellington Woollen Mills, asking for an all-round- increase, m wages of 10 per cent. The directors of the iniUs replied by otCering a bonus of 5 per cent. fV and "regretted that they (the- union) should make a demand dif.-' fering from that of the southern mills, viz., 5 per cent. Then. followed a^lot of

bucking and filling which §nded m I'OO workers out of a total of 533 sending i IN TYPE-WBITTEN RESIGNATIONS. This was on March 10, and on the 15th of the earn© month, almost the ,wholo of the workers discontinued work. He admiued that notice nad beeir given under clauso 10, but, ho contenOed that as tho whole of tho workers bad acted m concert that they had formulated and carried out a strike. Edward Kennedy, secretary of the Union, gave formal evidence, referring mainly to the type- written "notices" which had been sent m by the alleged strikers. . r Mr. Wilford: You are the Union secretary? — Yes. And receive the magtiiilcent sum of 10/- per week? — Yes. And the girls pay m l%d per week? —Yes. And the company is claiming more than four yeara' receipts of tho union? — YOB. Can you foil Iho court if the notices were served m order to compel \ the company to agree to their demands j or (objection by Mr. Macassey here) j whether they were dissatisfied with ! their wages as agninst the cost of 11 v- j Ing?-— They were dissatisfied with their wages. ■ I Further evidence was given as to

the manner m. .which ■ each employee had sent m his or her notice, and' it was elicited that each had signed off the books m the ordinary manner of an employee who was leaving. Mr. A. E. Donne gave evidence of the negotiations which prefaced the alleged strike. He admitted to Mr. Wilf ord that the award allowed any member to leave his employment on his or her giving m a seven days' notice. William Langridge, who was to have been the whole king- pin of the company's case, said that he HAD ATTENDED A MEETING at which a resolution had been carried asking- fon a 10 per cent increase. Mr. Macassey: Did you move an amendment? — No. Did anyone else?— l don't knoyr. , How many were there? — About SO or 70. Did Mr. Kennedy speak? — Yes, he read .the correspondence between the company and the union. Was a resolution passed declining the offer of the directors? — Not at .any meeting that I was aL The whole of this gentleman's evidence was on the same lines. He "didn't know," or he "couldn't tell." He thought that someone did move that the directors* offer of 5 per cent, bo accepted, but ho. could not say for certain as there, was such a . "TERRIBLE LOT OF CONFUSION." He had not moved an amendment but he had given notice. Where did you get the type-written notice from? — From a friend who had nothing to do with the unionj What was his name ? — Lepper. And he was not a member of the union or an' employee' at the mills? — No. ■'. .":;. ■"•■■:■■■ -:' ■.. - -■' ■ In answer to Mr. -Wilf ord witness said that he gave notice to' the company because he l was dissatisfied with the wages; not to indues the directors to give him more money. The Bench: Would you have stayed if the directors had given you the 10 .per cent, you asked for?— l don't know -that I would. I had other work m view at 6/- a week more than I got -with the company. It was a matter of indifference to you? — Yes. Her© Mr. Wilf ord commenced his .address by saying that ho wished to -congratulate the Labor Department m itackling the Woollen Mills strike, as m 1907, when there were 67 strikes, they never tackled the job at all. "THBT DESEBVE A JIEDAL ;£or their attack;" said counsel, "eaipeciaHy when it is taken into consideration that the girls gathered £8,000 for the Patriotic Fund and gave their overtime." ■ The Bench: i That's nothing to do with the case. Mr. Wilf ord, continuing, pointed out that a strike was interpreted by section 3 df the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, and any decisions arrived at prior to that time could not be legally considered. He denied that the prosecution had proved "common, agreement or common understanding** aa to the alleged resolution to strike. He contended that if a man asked for an increase m, wages it was at his own option whether he remained or went away if his terms were not acceded to, and it could not be said that he had struck work. ■- ■ The Bench: Suppose, for argument's sake, that a man comes and says, "I want £10 per week. "Would you still hold that argument? Mr. Wilf ord : ; Yes. If my managing clerk, who may be getting so many hundred pounds pet* year, asked for £1000, saying, "I THINK IT'S WORTH XT," he has a perfect, right to ask for G, 10, .20 or 25 times as much as he Is getting. The Act provides . for the notice. ■ : ■ Mr. Wilford further quoted the case of : Andrew" Collins and the decision of Judge Sim, m which the learned judge said that an act of the secretary could not possibly be construed us being an act of, th« whole' union. If he had done anything which was outside his .duties as a secretary, the union could not be held- responsible. Mr. Macassey briefly addressed the Bench, and Mr. Rlddell intimated - that he would reserve his decision until ho had reviewed the cases auoted by counsel. ■■ '.