FREEZING WORKERS FINED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21032, 22 May 1930, Page 14

FREEZING WORKERS FINED.

: ♦ ECHO OF FINEGAND STRIKE. MAGISTRATE TAKES LENIENT VIEW. (From Our Own Correspondent.) BALCLUTHA. May 21. Sixty-one summonses hud been issued In connection with the recent strike of butchers and others at the Finegand Freezing Works, and while some had not been served at all the majority who had been served had left the district, and only practically the local men were left to face the prosecution by the inspector of awards on behalf of the Labour Department to-day. Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., occupied the bench, and the inspector (Mr A. T. Grnndisou, Dunedin) prosecuted. Mr G. M. Lloyd (Dunedin) appeared for the defendants. The department claimed from each of the defendants the sum of £lO as a penalty for, an offence under section 123 of “The Industrial. Conciliation, and Arbitration Act, 1925,’’ •articulars of which were as follows:—That defendants, being workers within •ie meaning of the said Act, and bound >y an award of the Court of Arbitration -namely, the Northern, Taranaki, Welugton, Marlborough, and Otago and onthland freezing works and related rades employees’ award, dated December >• 1029, did, on the third day of April, 1930, become parties to an unlawful nrike . . . contrary to the provisions >1 the said Act.” Twenty-nine summonses •ad been issued against butchers, and of these 22 had been served. Mr Lloyd stated that he would plead guilty on behalf of all those being proceeded against. On the application of the inspector (Mr Grandison) the informations were to read “ on or about April 3.” The inspector, in outlining the case tor the department, said the works were opened early in January, but.by February 16 only 16 butchers had been secured. Ill£ 2 manager (Mr Nicolson) required 31 • :;° f; le board,' and had sent from 40 ie GO wires to butchers in various parls ot the Dominion, but the men could not come, as they were unable to get their clearances from the secretary of the Otago union (Mr Milhvard). About the iiiuldlc of February, Millburn and three ot the local union delegates intimated to r tho mapager that if he started two bUvchers named Carter and Hogg, who l:ad been dismissed in the previous season tor taking drink to their hut and returning and abusing the foreman butcher, the board would be filled. These men were reinstated, but later the local Board of Control demanded that S. Hunt, alias u atson, a butcher, be given a hook. The manager refused, os he felt he was justified in doing so.and in any case the board was tail by this-time. In consequence of this on March 18. the men held a stop-work meeting, but nothing further was heard ot the matter until the 20th, when the manager informed the men that the board of directors, of which Mr P. M'Skimming was chairman, would not agree to a conterence the men had asked for. On March 11 the manager definitely told them he could not employ Hunt, and on April 1 Messrs Revel! (Dominion secretary) and illilburn (Otago secretary) conferred with the men, and after that the men issued a , n ultimatum to the company that if they, did not employ Hunt the men would go out at 5 p,m ; the next day. Twentynine butchers, with 20 assistants and four engine room labourers (53 in all) did so go on strike. On April. 3 the foreman of the freezing chamber was informed that all the chamber hands would also strike when they had finished putting the meat on hand away. 'There were 19 of these men, and eight went out on the 4th. and the rest continued in their employment, that made the 61 concerned in the strike. Seventeen labourers and slaughter assistants applied later and were re-engaged, They were still in the employ of the comnany, and in their case he would not press for a severe penalty. Of the 31 slaughtermen a number had previously been prosecuted for a breach of the award, Mr kloyd f°r the defendants, said it was with diffidence he had pleaded guilty. The inspector of. awards had been pa£ Dally right in his statement, but had not men al! the credit, they were n?* before the season opened three of the men were refused hooks, and the company had refused to consider their case, and as a result the men had got a t d;,K? mUni r tl , oa J with their mates at Thif Ce ’*k' ho had pr , oved sympathetic, W, Zf 3 a r . e j! son the clearances had been refused. Afterwards, when they arnved and learned the true position they refused to carry on. The company had to rems tate Hogg and Carter, but was made plain that Hunt was being blacklisted When the men aweed that there would be no further trouble they the o r ther d t that was included with was not an -l. w , hon the y f °und this '7 s they withdrew their guarantee to seas . on - Counsel proceeded a settlemp^ e n Var i°*u atte mptß made ai a settlement by both men and manageP eat . and argued that if a conference he be lf; g f aDted by the, management ol the directors, Retention committee (representing the farmers), and t™me n representatives the trouble might Tav< Hunw* e V- micab - ly ‘- rn the men’s vien w , aa hemg victimised by the asso mated freezing companies. The award and D thl COntended, i. W j a for mutual benefit and the company had committed a bread on with free labour men couhl vfot n °V competent butchers. E« ove lok tbnf h °n, the department conk handling ofiV. Ther l had be eu tactics: he contended* Vi?* 11 by i tbe > management nil ecl - , T « e men had subseauenth and 1 thp*°fnno? rk ’i - had been refuse d ana the local slaughtermen particularly were suffering because they had been re t he farmers also. Thl ma, . °i n the trouble wras over was now and the local mcn had t ; bear the brunt. These slaughter m « earned some £7 a week during the seasor sLanta°f5 m fln e i y +R 1X months and the as sistanta to, and they were all unite nre r ? turn to ' v °rk to-morrow. Lasi Ln-,1 tbe 61X men prosecuted had all beet '? cal , , men > , alld counsel, held that thal sh ?s d b t e - co " nte d against them now. -0.13 vyorship, in giving judgment saic utlJ h ° ,I troubl ? .had arisen trough th< n&o ende r° Ur , t tO . influence the em In t W -°a Wl °m they should employ in that, no doubt the men thought they were justified, but at the same time i< He%™°pnV a " d a breach of the. Act (r® ™, Bot fining to comment on the reaction b i‘ V i CoUns , el for the men’s fads whu* n,erel y. deal with th< tacts, while at the same time taking intc Tlm’n^iu 11 couns ? l ’s pleas for leniency the penalties provided by the Act were in e fnt!.ri e n de t 0 wu as a deterrent, and I °ped fbese men would think ddlfo a f \ d r n baf °rn they yvent out or nn, nv* M * llls ’ D - M'Ansiin. T. Rodgers and R. Yorston would be fined £0 and If 6d costs each, while the rest of the slaughtermen, viz., B. Woodford, E. Williams. W. Cam W. Joyce. W. Carter, G Hogg, R Cole, B. Swift, C. M'Allister. G new is. E. Stone, A. Kerwood, K.Gray C Gray, J. Rodgers. L. Paskelt, J. Long, and I. Breeze, were fined £5, yvith Is 6d costs ri 1 ' -ii . following labourers yvere fined £l. yvith 4s mileage, in the case of the G added: <L Lory T. Simpson, A. Dunn, J Smaill, K MTntosh, D. M'Farlane, R oltinner, W. W. Wallace. T, Morris A. Bellamy H. Ferguson, J. Barmimrton A■ Sba "d. M. Healey. T. Outsell, E. M'Fcc ters. W. MilJnr. R. M'Crutcheon. B. Fryer M. Dalgleish, M. Outsell. C. Low, T. Dunn 1 A- Anderson A. Russell. A. H. Smith. L Weir, E. Sutherland. J. Stcnning, H Has | ler.