AUCKLAND TRAMWAYS STRIKE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14358, 30 October 1908, Page 5

AUCKLAND TRAMWAYS STRIKE

■ —p- '— BREACHES OF AWARDS. WORKERS'' UNION FINED £60. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND. October 29. The Arbitration Court gave lis decision this morning in ecvcral cases arising out of the laic tramway strike. In the case against the Tramways Union, Mr Justice Sim caid that lie had taken into consideration the arguments advanced by Mr Res-:-:er, and recognised that- the numerous dismissals of workers probably had the effect ot creating an impression that the company was actuated by hostility against the union, but the dismissals which took place were within the company's rights. It was as right for an employer to get rid <:f an employee as for an employee to get rid of an employer. The dismissals did not constitute a breach of award.. Probably the union did the only thing it could to get a complete ventilation of its grievances. That appeared to be the most that could be said for the union. On tho other hand, his Honor took into consideration the fad that the strike had created considerable disturbance, and had caused much inconvenience and hiss of business to the people. It was absurd to say that there was any real excuse lor the strike, and the court must impose a most substantial penalty. Tho court ordered the union to pay £60 to the appellant as a penalty for the. strike. .Regarding the case against the company for dismissing Conductor Hcrdson, the court was clear that Herdson was informed that he could get a week's pay in lien of notice on returning his uniform. A week's pay should have actually been handed lo him, hut the breach was trilling, and did not call tor a penalty. In the case against the company for not providing a week's work for men on the regular stall' during Christmas week, the President said the .company employed a certain number of motormen and conductors for special service. The day proved wet. and the special service was suspended, and the men were only paid for the time actually worked. He'thought the award imposed on the company the finding of work tor men on the regular list ; otherwise, the company could give a regular man a week's notice, and not provide him with work dining that time. The court held that the company was not hound to (hid work for the men on Christmas Day, as it v/fi> not bound to provide work on Sundays, and the men were onlv entitled for the actual time worked on tliose dare.