AN ILLEGAL STRIKE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17837, 20 January 1920, Page 2

AN ILLEGAL STRIKE

TARATU MINEBS PROSEOtrniDi

FINES OF £2 IMPOSED, Mr E. D. Mauley, S.M., ha<l a (lold day at Ivaitangatii yesterday, when 66 miners crowded into the fimall courtliouao to answer for a strike at the Turutu mine Just October. The (\ha.rges ivere laid by the inspeetor of Awards (Mir L. D. Jirowett), wlio claimed a penalty of £10 from encli d-jfeiuhuit for a hreach of tlio Taratu coal iniiHrs' aw;iril hi tlint defendants ateented themselves from work oil or about Octol>er 24, IUI9. Tlio amoiuit of the claim was reduced lob in eonlormity with tho sect.iou of' the Arbitration Act undor which tli'.) iiilonniition was laid.—JVlr W. C. Mac(Jregor. K. 0., prosecuted, and Mr R. 11. tirigor (Uaiciuthu) defended at tho instanco of tho union.

'llio names of tho men who were charged arc as follow: —Robert M'Vio, Aaron Davis, J. >S. M'Kennoy, Thomas Cairns, James Uennie (2), Thomas Rarity, James Griitcn, James M'Kenn'-'y, George Thompson, itobert Burgess, William Saunders, Thomas Middleton, Joshua Davis. Nathaniel Jiloxtn.m, John Jack, William Garrey, William Bonnie, Joseph Gray, Ralph Harrison, Robert Ramsay, James M'Gowan, William Mackie, Vernon Wilson, Alexander Taylor, John Morrow, Harry, John, and lloy Wrigglcsworth, John Shore, William Gilbert, James Barclay, Robert Oliver, Jamss Nowburn, Alexander Ramsay, James Harrison, Andrew Good, Pat Rogers, Fred Johnson, Walter Hanson,, David Phillips, Alexander Forrest, William Sneddon, William Simm, Fred Williams, James Mulraney, Arthur Matchott, Sydney Rogers. Alexander Gray, James Thomson (son. and jun.), John O'Loary, William Penman, Robert Allan, and two youths. Tlio defence was nearly wrecked at tho outset owing to tho neglect of the defendants to file notices of defence. Formal loave to defend was therefore applied for by their counsel, who said that some of tho minors were away on holiday when tho summonses wore served, and the court at that time .was closed for a fortnight. The miners woro ignorant of the fact that they had to file noticcs to defend, and they had a good defence to put forward. —Plaintiff consanting, leave to defend was granted without further ado.

The charge against tlio secretary of the union (J. Thompson, jun.) was taken as a test ease.

Mr MaoGregor -said tha defendant was a coal miner, working in the Taratu mine, and secretary of tho Taratu Coal Miners' Industrial Union. Tho facts were not lengthy, and were admitted. A dispute arose between tho company and a man named Robertson a few days before the strike in October. Robertson left the mine, whether voluntarily or not counsel did not know. Tho men resented this, and on October 23 a deputation waited on the manager and told him plainly that'- unless Robertson was reinstated they would not go back to work. The manager told them he could not tako back a mam who had admitted himself that he was in the wrong, whereupon on Friday, October 24,, the men lit\ld a stop-work meeting, and by a majority of 37 to 6 passed a resolution that they would not resume work until Robertson was reinstated. A deputation waited on the manager and told him of it, but he replied in the samo terms as on the first occasion. They -returned a iittle lator, and said the men would be away from work till Robertson was put on again. The manager said, "Is this a strike?" and the president of the unon replied, " Yes." The manager then said ' 'fell the men there is work here for anybody who cares to a3k for it." The miners stayed away from work on tho Monday, Laboru Day, but held a meeting on the Tuesday, after which they told tho manager they would return the following morning unconditionally. Roberteon applied by telephone for work, and was told ho could start a day or two later. The men returaed to work on tho Wednesday, and Robertson started later. The men admitted to an inspector that it was a staikq, and that they quite expected to be prosecuted. The registration of tho union had been cainaallea a year ago, but the union was still in existence, and he understood the secretary had told a police offioor that the men still paid sixpence a week into the funds. Counsel proceeded to quote from a letter allegedly written by the secretary to the Maoriland Worker, in the course of which tho writer said: "A stopwork meeting was held, and tho men refused to go to work unless the man was reinstated. Now we are in the fight." Apparently both parties were satisfied with the outcome of the affair, but the fact remained that the mine was closed and loss was thereby occasioned to the management and great inconvenience caused to the consumers at a time when coal was badly wanted. .

Tho Magistrate: What does the mine produce ?

Mr Gillick (the manager): A hundred and sixty tons a day. Continuing, counsel said it was impossible to say whether the aotion was really taken for the reason advanced or as part of tho go-slow policy that had been so painfully in evidence. Tho term of the award was for the duration of the war and six months thereafter. These were the facts, and as they were admitted there was no neod to call evidence. Ho understood there were two questions of law which would probably be raised. Tho first wa« a suggestion that tho war was at an end when the armistice was proclaimed, but that, of course, was not the law. The other suggestion was that as the registration of tho union had been cancelled on July 3, 1919, the individual miners were not now subject to the penalty. That, however, was quite a mistaken view of the law. Counsel referred the court to sections of the Act on this point, and instanced the case of the Inspector of Awards v. Thompson, Lewis, and Co., heard in Wellington in 1908. The employers in that caso claimed they were not bound by the award as the workers had cancelled the registration of the union, kit the court held it. was still binding on all but those who had cancelled it. Tho amount of the penalty was for his Worship to say. Four of the cases might be found to stand on a different footing, and ho had arranged with the defending counsel that they should farm tho subject of inquiry. Mr Grigor said the facts were admitted. He contended that cancellation of registration did not save tho award. Section 10 of the 1918 Amendment Act showed that the effect of suspension was to do away with all the rights between tho parties, and counsel contended that cancellation would go much further. Counsel further held that even if the award were saved, tho penalties under it were not. It then became simply an ordinary service of contract. The union had not any of tho rights they held as members of a union,' but they still had their rights as ordinary workers for their employers. Counsel contended that the question of the termination of the war had not been decidod. All the authorities were agreed that the termination of the war was the cessation of hostilities, that was to say, when armed , violence ceased to bo usod. That being so. the award ceased six months after, but it remained in force till a new award was obtained or the union's registration cancelled. Registration of the union was cancelled in July, 1919, and the alleged strike occurred on October 24. He contended, therefore, that the award was not in force on the date on which the alleged breach was committed. If tho court held that none of his contentions were sound, then he would say in mitigation of the penalty that anything more than the minimum fine did not 6eem to be necessary in this case. The men had a grievance and might have gono the wrong way about redressing it, but the fact that their grievance was a real one was shown by the agreement made when they wient back to work. The strike was no part of the go-slow policy at aIL It was a distinct quarrel between the men and their employers. _ Robertson had been concerned in a civil action against his employers in the Supreme Court which was decided against him, and immediately after the management removed him from its service. '

Regarding the term of the awaxd tho Magistrate said it had' been hold repeatedly, and ho was in personal agreement with :t, that tho termination of the war was the date on which peace was officially signed. The more important point really was whether cancellation of the registration of the union affected the or tho penalties. In his opinion tho award, so far as it affccted the individual miners, was still in force. It was really a contract made between the company and tho individual miners, and so long as it remained in force mere cancellation of tho union's registration could not affect it. Holding that, he must hold that tho miners were liable to the penalties provided by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The amount would bo stated later on when he had heard the rest of the cases. Ton of the miners applied for and were granted leave to defend their cases. In the case of Robert Allan, Mr Grisror said tho two other youths charged along with him wero employed by him, and were not on the company's pay sheet.

Mr MaeGregor: All we know is that they ftro nut down as Allan Withers. Robert Alia* said lie did not vote at the stop-work meeting. Ho vent to eso S tiw?

men were going to work, as theiro would bo no work lor him to <k> if tlicy weio not. If ho hail gone in to the company to next day ho would have got no pay. Tlio other two worked for liim, urul were not paid by tho oorapany. If his work had tl'en thoro ho would have done it. .

The caws against tlio tlireo brothers were dismissed.

'] 'Jig ehargo against Alex. Taylor, who said lie was working and was sent home by tho manager, was also dismissed. Fred Johnson said his work was getting out the boxes, ami if the infn were not going to work the.ro wou.d bo nono lor him to do. —Tho Magistrate saidi that, in his opinion, the deiendant came umier the torms of the award, lie arrived at the same decision in the cases of MorroW and Hanson, who said they were working ior a contractor, Johnson, bift were paid by the company.—Geo. Thompson, who admitted, naively, that ho was in indili'ercnt health at tho tiqie, ant! thought a day oil wouldn't hurt him, and David l'hilipps, who had bc<Mi back 12 months from the war, and who su;(1 lie was not n.waro of the terms of tho agreement, were both convicted. Jas. Bennie, the elder, said ho disagreed with tho decision to strike, and tried to dissuade tho men. There was no use one going to work.—The chargo against, him was dismissed, as being trivial.——Robert Burgess said he voted against tho strike, but there was no use asking for wari;. Tlio engine-driver had been told not to let anyono down tho mine except the mine offioials. —The Magistrate: The case against you is dismissed'. Tho Magistrate sa.:d tho strike was a very foolish act on the part of the miners. It was exceedingly thoughtless, but, of course, the court must hold tho officials of the union to be primarily responsible. The members of the union, however, had the power of veto, and could not. be held blameless, but, primarily the officials must be ho'd responsible in the major degree for t)ho arts of the other men. Therefore, he would differentiate in tho amount of the penalties. Members of the union who sought office would have to remember that by doing po thev incurred extra responsibility and extra liability. They would have to seo that the rank and file were not oarried away by the feelings at tho moment. Tho president of the union ("Ralph Hamson) and the secretary (.Tns. Thompson, jnn.) were ench fined £3. with costs, and solictor's feo (10s 6d). All the others oonvieted wcv*o oaoli (intnl £2. with costa. anrl folicitor's feo (ss). In the ea«? of 00. Thompson the fine was -reduced to £1.