AN ILLEGAL STRIKE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18612, 21 July 1922, Page 6

AN ILLEGAL STRIKE

OFFENDERS BEFORE THE COURT. FREEZING WORKS DISPUTE. THE MAGISTRATE’S COMMENTS. (Pro Uinrao Pbhm Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, July 20. ‘T fined after careful consideration of the evidence that the cessation of work at the North Canterbury freezing works at Kaiapoi on June 13 did constitute an illegal strike, and that George Collister and Wm. Chaney were parties to the said strike.” This was the judgment given by Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning in a case in which the Inspector of Awards, Mr Fielder, claimed from George Collister, a freezing works hand, and Wm. Chaney, a slaughterman, employees of the North Canterbury freezing works, Kaiapoi, under section 6 'of th«» Industrial and Conciliation Amendment Act, 1908, for the sum of £lO as a penalty for taking part in on unlawful strike. In the case of Collister the Magistrate said it was alleged against the ’ defendant that, being bound by the Canterbury district freezing works and related trades employees’ award, he became party to a strike. Defendant was a freezing works hand, in the employ of the North Canterbury Sheepfarmers’ Freezing Works, Kaiapoi, which was a party to the award of 1921. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the cessation of work on June 13 did not constitute on unlawful strike, and, further, that even if it did defendant did not leave the works with any intention that would bring him under the penal clause of section 6. ft was stated that defendant had been intimidated into leaving the works by other men. and it did seem singular that he was the last man to leave off work. ’“After careful consideration of the evidence,” said Mr Wilson, “I find that the executive at the Kaiapoi works did constitute an illegal strike, and I find the reason why the men stopped work was that the company had elected to reduce wages in accordance with the pronouncement made by the Arbitration Court for a reduction of the bonus. Hie company had given notice that wages were to be reduced, and the men ceased work in order to bring pressure to boar on them so that they would not give effect to the court’s pronouncement.” He found there had been concerted action on the part of the workers. They held meetings, and as a result of these meetings the men had gone out on strike, thus causing loss and inconvenience to the employers. Collister was the last man to leave the works, but there was nothing to justify him in so doing. He alleged he had been intimidated, and if this was so he should have informed his employers of the before going out. It was, however, in his favour that he was the last man to leave. The question of penalty was one which required consideration. It was a matter of grave importance, for this was an industry employing hundreds of men in an essential work under conditions and rafes of pay which had been fixed by the law of the land. These rates of pay had been reduced, and the men must have realised that any opposition was equivalent to flying in the face of the law. Collister was certainly not an _ agitator, or the prime mover in the strike, but he should not have been swayed by tho other men. It was to his credit that he had stayed out till the last, but still his action deserved censure, and he would be fined £2. In the case against Chaney the Magistrate said the circumstances were different, for he had gone out with the main body of the strikers. He would be fined £5.