JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2818, 18 March 1908, Page 74

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.

UNION FINED £75. CASK AGAINST COMPANY DISMISSED. (Pbom Our Own Correspondent.) GREYMOUTH, March 13. The following judgment of the court was delivered by Mr Justice Slim: — In this caee ft ie alleged that the union has committed an offence under section 15 of "The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1905." by proposing, aiding, and abetting a strike amongst its members employed at the Blackball Coal Company's mine at Blackball. On the 3rd of March, 1902, this court made an award on the application of the union fixing the wages and conditions of work of the miners employed in the Blackball Company's mine at Blackball. The term fixed for the duration of the award expired on the 31st of Maroh, 1905, but the award has not been superseded by another award or an agreement, and the parties were still working under its provision in February last. On the 26th of February there were 140 men working in or about the mine, and of these 107 were employed underground. The mine manager on that day dismissed seven of these underground workers. The dismissal was considered by the union at a meeting of its membsrs held on the evening of the same day. A deputation, consisting of the president and secretary of the union, was appointed to interview the manager and to ask him to reinstate these seven men. and also to pay them for the time lost. The deputation then waited on the manager, who declined to reinstate the men. This reply was reported to the union, and, after further discussion of the matter, it was resolved that no member of the union should go to work at tho mine again unless these eeven were reinstated and paid for the time lost. The effect of this resolution was communicated to the manager on the same evening, and none of the miners or truckers returned to work on the following 1 day, and no work has been done in .the mine since that dat». For the union it was contended by Mr Guinness that in order to constitute a strike there must be. a cessation of work for tne purpose of obtaining an increase of wajrus or of preventing a reduction of wagos, and that when, as in the present case, th«» cessation of work was for some other purpose that did not amount to a strike. We think that the word "strike" ac used in "The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1905,'' should not be construed in the narrow eenee. The object of the Industrial and Conciliation Acts is to §ecure the settlement of ail industrial disputes by means of conciliation, or, failing that, by arbitration, and the obvious intention OJE the Amendment Act of 1905 k to prevent any strike or lockout; in any industry in connection with which an award or industrial agreement is in force. To give effect to this intention it is necessary to hold that, in order to constitute a strike, it is sufficient if the cessation from work ia for the purpose of enforcing any demand in connection with industrial matters that can be made the subject of an industrial dispute. "The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905,'* contains a very wide interpretation of the term "industrial matters," which includes (inter alia) "the dismissal of or refusal to employ any particular person of persons or class pf persons." The dismissal of tne men in question and the .refusal to reinstate them could therefore hare been made ths subject of an industrial dispute and we hold that the cessation from work of the members of the union, acting in concert, &a they did, with the object of compelling the company to reinstate the

dismissed miners, was a. strike within tho meaning of the act. The argument that a strike cannot be an offence under section 15, unless the award or industrial agreement was made after the act came into force, as referred to in subsection 3 of that section, was considered by this court in the case of the Inspector of Awards v. Millar, and it was there decided that the effect of section 15 is to make, a strike punishable in all cases where an award 1 or industrial agreement is in force as specified in subsection 3 of section 15, whether such award or agreement was made before or after the aot came into force. We hold, therefore, that there has been a strike within the meaning of the act, and as this took place in pursuance of, a resolution passed by the union, the union has been guilty of the offence of proposing a strike, and is liable to a penalty under section 15. Before dealing witfy the question of what penalty should be imposed, it is necessary to refer briefly to the oirsumstances that preceded the strike. The first trouble between the union and the company appears to have arisen over tne question of crib time. At one time this had been 30 minutes, but about nine years ago it was reduced, at the request of the miners, to 15 minutes, whioh was allowed when the award, which has no reference to the subject, was made in 1902. No complaint had been made to the company by the union or the miners that this crib time was too short, nor any request made to have it extended, although in practice the company had not objected to a slight extension in the time. This was the 6tate of affairs when the secretary by direction of the union, wrote to the manager of the company on the 23rd of January in the following terms: — "I am instructed to write notifying you that my union has decided to have 30 minutes for meal time, the same to come into operation on and after Monday, January 27, 1908." The company naturally objected to dictation of this kind from the union, and the manager replied on the following day in these terms:— "Your letter of 23rd inst. to hand. Meal time: I would be pleased to learn by what authority your union extends the meal time from 15 to 30 minutes. You are, I presume, making a law for your own benefit by altering a meal time that was mutually arranged and has been in force for a number of years. Any member of your union taking more than 15 minutes does so on his own responsibility, for this company cannot alter its arrangements on one day's notice, and will expect all workmen to resume work after the expiration of 15 minutes for meal time." Notwithstanding this protest, the union declined to recede Ifrom the position taken up, and from and after the 27th January the men insisted on taking 30 minutes for crib time. Two cases were brought to test the matter- under .the Coal Mines Act. These were heard before the stipendiary magis--trate at Greymquth on the 10th February, but his decision was not given until the 10th March. In the meantime, before the decision was given, the union had discovered that some of the members thereof — viz., the truckers — were working in excess of the hours permitted" by the rules of the union. That arose in this way : The mine had been worked in two shifts, but these were reduced to one shift about a year ago. This change made it necessary, in order to overtake the work ot the mine, for 10 of the 18 truckers employed by the company to work a shift of 10 hours. For any work beyond eight hours the men were paid overtime in accordance with the provisions of the award. The somewhat belated discovery that this system was contrary to the rules of the union was communicated to the company in a letter written by the secretary of the union on the 20th February, in these terms: — "I am instructed to write drawing your attention to the fact that you are working some of our members 10 hours per clay underground. This is altogether against the principles and rules of my union. Rule 24 inflicts a penalty of 10s on any member violating this clause. That is the eight hours' system, and we are thus notifying you that in the future we intend to adhere strictly to the eight hours' bank-to-bank principle." The manager replied as follows: — "Your letter of the 20th inst. to hand. Truckers: I hope your union is not losing sight of the fact that truckers are . paid time and a-quarter for overtime, and we can only state that if the truckere are prevented from doing the trucking as required we shall be compelled to call upon the miners to do a certain amount of trucking." This reply was written on the 25th February, but was not delivered to the secretary of the union until the following day (Wednesday) Mr Leiteh, the mine manager, after delivering this letter, concluded that there was no chance of the miners agreeing" to do any trucking, as the union would not allow the truckers to work more than eight hours per day, and as the miners would not, Mr Leitch concluded, do any truoking themselves, the result would be that the truckers would not be able to keep pace with the miners, and it became necessary, as Mr Leitch says, to reduce the number of miners by seven. Mr Leitch went round with Mr Thompson, the underviewer, between 12 and 1 o'clock on Wednesday, a«d there and then dismissed seven miners without allowing them to finish their shifts. There ia a conflict of evidence as to the circumstances in which the dismissal took place. Sir Leitch says that he spoke quietly to the men, and did not use any offensive language, and his evidence on this point is corroborated by that of Mr Thompson, who admittedly was present at the interviews with all or nearly all the men. TJhe men, oji the other hand, say that Mr Leitoh addressed them all oxcept Bromilow in offensive language. It appears to be unnecessary to determine whether Mr Leiteh did or did not use the offensive language complained of. beoause the question has really nothing to do with the matter we have to determine. It is not suggested that the strike waa caused by Mr Leitoh'e manner of speaking to the men when they were dismissed, but by the dismissal itself. Taking Mr Leitch's own account of the reduction of hands, it is clear that he was unfortunate in the method he c-hose for carrying it out. If he had desired to increase the friction between ihe union and the company, ana to bring about a orisis, lie could not have selected a better way ot obtaining' his end 1 than by reducing hands without Informing the union, as in the circumstances he should have done, of his intention to do so, and by dismissing the seven miners in the middle of their shifts in the peremptory fashion he adopted. But, however much Mr Leitch may be to bl&md for the manner in whioh he carried out the reduction of hands, his action was no justification, or even exciiee, for the strike;

r.or, apart from the question of the strike, T is the union free from blame in the iratter. The high-handed arbitrary way in which it took on itself to increase the "crib" time from 15 to 30 minutes was quite inexcusable. It may be the case that a "crib" time of 15 minutes is too short, but the proper way to have got an increase was to have approached the company with a view of making an agreement on the subject, and, failing an agreement to have got the qutttion settled according to law. It appears to us that the action of the union in connection with this question of the " crib " time was really the beginning o! the friction which culminated in the strike. That strike was entered upou deliberately, and has been persisted in ' notwithstanding the attempts of peacemakers to get the- miners to return to work The company was willing to reinstate the dismissed men, but the negotiations for a settlement were fruitless through the union insisting on a silly stipulation for a ballot in connection with the future dismissal of men In view of all the circumstances, we have decided to impose a ' fne of £75, and we order the union to pay that sum to the inspector of awards as a penalty for the offence. There is one aspect of the matter in connection with the piesent strike to which it seems desirable to refer. It appears from the evidence that several Trades and Labour Councils, and also some workers' unions Jn the Dominion, have passed resolutions expressing their approval of the present strike. Now, the whoio purpose of the conciliation and arbitration system is to prevent strikes, and it is cltar that arbitration and strikes cannot exist together as remedies for the settlement of industrial dispute**. The workers of the Dominion must make up '.heir minds which of those romedi-js thty desire to see retained. They cannot have both, and thov must elect which they will support. If they are satisfied that it would ho better for rbem to have the arbitration sysiem abohbhod, and the right of ] striking restored in its intag.-ity, there would be little difficulty, we think, m persuading employers to concur with the workers in asking the LeusLature to bring about the change, and the employers would assist, no doubt with becoming chcerfulr>ese in performing the obsequies of the system. If. however, the workers desire to retain the present system of arbitration, either with or without modification, then they ought to realise that every resolution which is passod epprovinof of a strike fur- i nishes an argument for Ihe abolition of the system. An arbitration system which does not prevent strikes is a failure, and o«»nnot survive. If the workers, by striking ] and approving of stril.es, bring about the j destruction of the arbitration system, they "■j&y have c-ccasion in future to deplore, ■when too late, the sad want of foresight shown by their leaders. j BLACKBALL MINERS' INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS (APPLICANT) AND THE BLACKBALL COAL COMPANY, LIMITED (RESPONDENT). Mr Guinness appeared for the union, and Mr Harman for the company. The following is the judgment of the court delivered by Mr Justice Sim: — "The company is alleged to have committed breaches of the award made by the court on the 3rd day of March 1902, in connection with the Blackball mine, and also breaches of section 108 of ' The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905,' and of section 15 of the amendment act of 1805. The following are the particulars of the alleged breaches as set forth in the union's application for enforcement: — ' (1) That the Blackball Coal Company (Ltd.), on or about the 26th day of February, 1908, committed a breach of the said award by wrongfully dismissing seven workers in its employ at piecework without giving the said workers any notice and whilst they were in the middle of their day's work ; (2) that the Blackball Coal Company, on or about the 26th day of February, 1908, dismissed seven workers in its employ at piecework by reason merely of the fact that the said workers wore members of the Blackball Miners' Industrial Union of Workers ; (3) that the Blackball Coal Company on or about the 26th day of February, 1908, created a lockout by wrongfully dismissing seven workers in its employ at piecework.' This case, by consent, was heard at the same time as the case brought by the Inspector of Awards against the union for proposing, aiding, and abetting a strike of its members at the company's Blackball mine, and the circumstances in connection with the dismissal of the seven workers in question are set forth in the judgment in that case. The men who were dismissed were all pieceworkers, and they were dismissed before the end of their shift. They were all, with one exception, working in placps which had been cavelled for in accordance with clause 13 of the award (Book of Awards, Vol 111, page 423), which provides that all places are to be cavelled every three months. It was contended that the effect of this clause was to make th« engagement of a miner in these circumstances a hiring- for at least three monthe, or until his place had been worked out. This is a view of the relation between employer end miner which had not been at any time, acred on in this mine, or, so far as we know, in any other mine in the Dominion. The practice at the Blackball mine ha« always been for a miner to leave whenever he pleased, and even before he had finished his shift. We think that the provision in the award as to cavelling does not by implication fix any period during which the relation of maeter and servant is to continue between the company and the miner } and that in the absence of any stipulation on the subject, a pieceworker may leave whenever he pleases, and that his employer mey dispense with his services whenever he pleases, ana need not wait until the end of the shift. We hold therefore that the union has failed to establish that the company has committed any breach of award by dismissing the men in question. The next allegation against the company is ti&t it committed an offence under flection 108 of the act of 1805 by dismissing these men by reason merely of the fact that they were members of th« Blackball Miners' Union. The evidence shows that of the seven men "who were dismissed only two— viz., Fox and Milligan — , were ktaown to the manager to be members of the union. The union has failed elto- | gather to prove the alleged offence. The Reason for reducing the number of miners in the mine was the fact that the union ! had refused to allow any of the truckere to work more than eight hours per day. Mr Leitch «aya that ha selected Ihe men to be dismissed because they were the least suitable for the work of the mine, but it appears to be doubtful whether this waa tiu real reason, and we suspect iiiat Mr

Leitcb wished to get rid of these men because he supposed that they had been responsible largely for the trouble in connection with the question of " crib " time and the reduction of the hours of trucking. We do not decide that this was Mr Leitch 's reason, but even if it was his reason, he was within his leg»l rights in the matter. It is also alleged that the company created a lockout by dismissing these men. Only 6even out of 80 miners were dismissed, and the company was willing and anxious to carry on operations with the remaining 73 miners. In this circumstance it is clear that no lockout has taken place. The application for enforcement is, therefore, dismissed, and tho union is ordered to pay the company costs, which we fix at £3 3s. ■