THE SHIPPING HOLD UP

NZ Truth, Issue 889, 9 December 1922, Page 6

THE SHIPPING HOLD UP

Declared A Strike

Fines Imposed.

Was it a strike or not a strike? This question m reference to the shipping hold' /up, Magistrate Page was asked to settle on Tuesday last, when 36 seamen were charged'vwith having, between November 10 and 14, broken their award by being parties to a' strike. His answer m a reserved judgment delivered- this morning is m the affirmative. The case's were all more or less of a similar nature, and accordingly only two typical of the" remainder were dealt with, m order to obtain a x ruling. These involved the actions of the crews on the Wainul and Kahika respectively. The prosecutions were brought by the Department of Labor for which Lawyer Fair of the Crown Law Office appeared. 'Lawyer Hoggard defended. Reviewing the evidence adduced, the Magistrate observed that a general meeting of members of the Union, attended by over 200, took place m Wellington on November 10. The now award came into operation on November 1, and- according, to Mr W. T. Young, secretary of 'the Wellington Union, contained big reductions m pay and was m many respects not as satisfactory to the men as the previous one, but at the meeting it was discussed only "slightly" and no resolution relating to it was carried. On November 11, the day after the meeting, a member of the crew of the Watnui went to tho master and stated that he wished to GIVE 24 HOURS' NOTICE, on behalf of all the members of tho crew of their intention to cease work. Individual notice was required and as each man filed past he was asked the reason for his notice. The first ropllod that it was given as a result of the meeting, held at Wellington, and with one exception each of the others said, "For the same reason as the man before me," or repeated tho reason given by the first man. For the defence it was contended that there was no proof of any combination, agreement or common understanding, but his Worship hold there wua clear evidence of such and that the actions were not taken individually. The manner m which the notice was* given as well as tho reasons advanced indicated this. Secondly, it was urged thero. was no proof that the action was taken to bring pressure on the employers. On this point his Worship observed that Mr Young had declined to answer a question as to whether he had interviewed the employers, on the ground that it might incriminate himself or the Union. No evidenco was called to show there had been any such conferences or' that any proposals had been laid before the employers, but on the other hand it was shown that the award did not meet with approval, that a general meeting had been held ten days after it camo into force, that a cessation of work followed closely, and that tho reason given by many of the men when ceasing work was that their action was a result of the meeting. No reason -which would INDUCE BODIES OF MEN to leave their ships at a time like the present, other than the coming into force of the new award, had been shown or even suggested. "Looking at the -whole cf tho facts." said his Worship, "I think that it is a proper Inference — tho only possible, reasonable inference — that the concerted action of the men was taken with Intent to briny pressure to bear on tho employers and so to compel or Induce them to agree to terms of employment either already suggested or to bo so. In my opinion, tho plaintiff has established his case; tho defendant h.'is been a party to a strike and Is liable to a penalty. After mentioning the maximum was a tenner, his Worship Imposed a line of X' 2. Tho defendant In this case was one 1). Manson. In tin; case of tho crew of the Kuhlka (defendant A. McKlnnon) the Magistrate held there was clear evidenco that a common • undemanding existed between the men uu shown by tho way they gavo their notice ! and tho objection they raised at the time to their carrying on work. Their object m cousin}; work was the same as In the pluvious case. A Klmllar penalty svas Imposed — viz., £2.