WATERSIDE STRIKE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19700, 29 January 1926, Page 2

WATERSIDE STRIKE.

HANDLING GUANO CARGO. MAGISTRATE DELIVERS JUDGMENT. SMALL PENALTY IMPOSED. Mr H. W. Bundle. S.M., delivered judgment yesterday in the case in which 15 waterside workers were charged vvith having discontinued work in handling guano on the s.s. Kakapo after a dispute had arisen as to the wage to be paid; also with becoming parties to an unlawful strike. The men charged wore T. Russell, A. Payne. J. Howie (jun.). T. Flaherty, J. Flood, J. Cox. M. Corfield, C. Borie, R. M’Gregor, J. Pynor. H. Ross, J. Thomson, T. J. Smythe, W. Rumble, and . D Richards, and the charge was that, being workers within the meaning of the Industrial, Conciliation, and Arbitration Act, 1908, and its amendments, were bound by an award of the Court or Arbitration, they did, on or about October 3, 1920, hecorne parties to an unlawful strike of waterside workers at Dunedin on the . steamship Kakapo after a dispute had arisen as to the rate of remuneration for the work, and contrary to the provisions of the award had prevented the work of them enfpkiyor preceding. A penalty of £ls was claimed ,in each case. • Mr C. A. Berendsen appeared for the plaintiff (the Labour Department), and Mr J. Roberts for the defendants. The Magistrate outlined the facts of the case and stated that he had to decide whether the action of th© men constituted a strike. Several defences were raised by the defendant Richards. _Thcy might be summarised as follows: —U) Defendant and the other men did not break their contract of service; (2) they left because they honestly believed their bea.th was endangered and not to coerce the employers; (5) there was no proof that the men acted in concert. Dealing with each defence separately his Worship stated that the men were engaged to work bagged guano, but that it was in fact bulk guano. Their contract was to unload a cargo of guano and the question as to its being bagged or otherwise was a term of their employment, but not of their contract of service. In regard to their reason for leaving he was unable to accept the evidence for the defence that the men had been compelled to do so because of any anticipated danger to their health. Guano was quite a common if unpleasant, cargo to handle, and provision was made for it in the ; He was not impressed with the evidence of Mr Brown, secretary of the unl T’ connection. His evidence throughout showed distinct bias, and it was unfortu natothot he should think it necessary strongly to exaggerate and thus attempt to Sad the court. There was no doubt in his Worship’s mind that from the time Mr Brown looked at the cargo Thursday . afternoon his addi»v»«,nTa ohieci> was to obtain axiui tfonal pay work of unloading guano was no P doubt objectionable but it was not any real or anticipated clanger to bwto that caused cessation of work, but msuih eient nav With regard to the defence that rSad not acted in concert there was amnio evidence, in his opinion, that all tho P men had stopped work at tho . ’N”® time. This happened after an conference at which the main, f only, .object was to settle the rate of p y• The men who were left refused to * li; F the method of working. The first step in waterside disputes was to refer the ™attei to the local Disputes Committee, .and in case of no agreement being to refer it to tho National Disputes Committee. Steps were being taken to reter the dispute m question to the latter committee but a settlement was arrived at. Objection was taken by the defendants to tho method of settling the present dispute, it being contended that th© matter fihoiucl be referred to an independent person. The real dispute was with regard to the rate of pay, and the correct course was to refer it to the settlement committees without cessation of work. He had no hesitation in finding that the defendant and the other men ceased work in order to induce their employers to concede the additional pay asked lor fay their representatives, and in_ doing so,, wore parties to a strike. In view of the particularly unpleasant nature of tne cargo to bo unloaded he was unable to look on the strike as one calling for a heavy penalty, and he would impose a penalty of 20s. Judgment would bo given for the plaintiff for this amount. The plaintiff also claimed a further penalty for breach of the award in that defendant, after a dispute had arisen as to wages, prevented the work of his employers from proceeding as if no dispute had arisen. In his Worship's opinion proceedings for such a penalty would be* more properly brought against tho union. This portion of the claim was dismissed.

Mr Lightfoot, on behalf of the department, asked for solicitor’s fee and witnesses’ expenses, bufc the claim was not allowed. Mr Bundle suggested that it would have been more advisable to bring the cases before the Arbitration Court.