JUDGMENT REVERSED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18754, 6 January 1923, Page 7

JUDGMENT REVERSED

APPEAL IE WAKATU STRIKE CASE.' Following is a, detailed account of an appeal brought by W. H. Roberts, seaman, of Wellington, against a judgment by Mr Wyvorn Wilson. S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, which has been, allowed by the Arbitration Court. T. S. Feildcr, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against Roberts on a charge that he was a party to a strike on the Wakatu at Lyttelton on May 12, 1922, and the magiatrale inflicted a fin© of £lO on defendant The Inspector of Awards contended that the crew of the Wakatu was affected by an industrial agreement dated February 7, 192 between the seamen and the New Zealand Shipowners’ Federation, to which the Wakatu Shipping Company was affiliated. The appeal” was lodged by Roberts on the ground that the magistrate’s decision was wrong on point of law and matter of fact. ■ It was agreed to confino the appeal to points of law. In his decision, Mr Justice Frazer stated: “The New Zealand Shipowners' Federation is not a body registered under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Its objects in so far as they affect the present appeal are to act generally in an advisory capacity in matters affecting shipowners. The federation does not control or own any steamships, and does not employ any seamen. It is therefore not an employer as defined in Section 0 ot “The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905.” As it is not registered as an industrial union or industrial association, it cannot bo a party to an industrial agreement, for Section 23 limits thi bodies and persons that can bo parties to such an agreement lo trades unions, industrial unions, industrial associations. and employer's. “Section 28 provides that an industrial agreement shall be binding on every member of an industrial union or industrial association party thereto, but as the Shipowners’ Federation is neither an industrial union nor an industrial association, its members cannot be bound by an industrial agreement to which the federation is n party. A member of on industrial union Or an industrial association cannot escane the obligations imposed by an industrial agreement by resignin" his or its mcinboiship, but the members o[° an unregistered body have no such restriction attaching fo them. There can bo no question of agency, for the federation has executed the agreement in its own name and on its own behalf, without specifying its members or purposing to bind them. The Wakatu Stcamiship Company (Ltd.), was therefore not a party to, nor was it bound by, the industrial agreement of February 7, 1920. and accordingly the industrial agreement was not in force as between the company and its employees, and tho penal provisions of the Act in regard to strikes can not he invoked. “In view of the decision to which we have come on the principal point involved, it is not necessary to examine at length tho further point raised, in regard to the sufficiency of the agreement with the crew, and we arc inclined to the view that the statement that two A.B.'s and one O.S. or boy are engaecd as sailors, appearing in the body of tha agreement is an indication that the number agreed to ho carried was the minimum number fixed' by the Act, -the requirements of which are set out by meana of a rubber-stamp impression on the agreement, and that any other men carried were supernumeraries, and did not affect the man-ning-scale as set out in the agreement with the °crew. For the reasons given, tho appeal is allowed, and the decision of the magistrate is reversed.” Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for appellant, and tho Inspector of Awards appeared in person. _____