A COSTLY STRIKE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3029, 3 April 1912, Page 4

A COSTLY STRIKE.

WELLINGTON TBAMWAYMEN PROSECUTED. UNION FINED £IOO. WELLINGTON, March 28. Recollection of the tramway strike was revived in the Magistrate's Court to-day, when the Wellington Tramway Employees' Union was proceeded against by Mr D. Carmody (Inspector of Awards) for a penalty of £2OO for a breach of section 6 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. . The allegation was that the union had instigated an unlawful strike at a time when members of the body were bound by an industrial agreement dated 27th November, 1911. Mr Carmody said that on or about December 19 considerable friction had existed between the union and a member of the corporation staff (Inspector Fuller). Representations had been made by the union to the City Council for the removal of Fuller from contact with the men. He believed that in the first instance the Tramway Committee of the council had agreed that Fuller should be removed, but had afterwards rescinded its resolution to that effect, and on about December 27 matters reached a deadlock, and remained so till January 31, when the cars had been stopped. The only official intimation received by the council or the electrical engineer on .the morning of January 31 was a short note to the effect that the cars woidd be held up from 2 o'clock that afternoon. The cars were taken to the sheds, and traffic was entirely suspended till the night of February 5. The inconvenience caused to the public was very great. People living in the suburbs who depended on the car service, and were entitled to it were compelled to walk. By the strike the men lost £893 in wages, and the City Corporation approximately £I2OO. There was not the slightest doubt that the men struck with the sole object of having Inspector Fuller removed from his position, and they were successful in their endeavours. As to the strike itself, it had to be said on behalf of the men that they had conducted themselves decorously. Mr Sutherland (secretary of the union) pleaded guilty to the charge. He said the strike was not brought on by the men ae a joke. They were forced into the matter. For over 18 months, ever since Fuller's entry into the service, they had nothing but trouble to put up with, and they had been put to considerable expense before in defending cases before the Appeal Board by the union. He admitted that inspectors were necessary in such a service as the tramways, but there were two ways of doing the work of an inspector—a right way and a wrong way. Fuller always took the course opposite to the right way. The men joining the service here did not get the protection in the nature of their employment that they were entitled to. He reminded his Worship that the Tramways Committee had decided to suspend Fuller, but that determination had been subsequently rescinded. So far as the union's part in the affair was concerned he declared that it had not gone as far as other unions of a like kind had done in Auckland and Capetown. They simply asked for the removal of the inspector to another branch of the service, and not for his dismissal. The men did not strike in a moment of anger. They thought the matter over for months and months. The cars were not left in the streets, but were put in the sheds, and the loss occasioned had been greater to the men than it had been to the corporation during the period of the strike. Except that the cars were not running no one would have known that a strike was in progress. He referred to the Auckland case, where a penalty of £75 had been imposed, and the board laid it down that any inspector found guilty of making unfounded charges against an employee should be instantly dismissed. In this case he plead-ed that the fine might be made as light as possible. Dr M'Arthur eaid he was pleased to hear what had been said regarding the conduct of the men, but the offence committed was a very serious one. A case of a similar kind in connection with the Merchant Service Guild had recently come under his notice, and, without going into the merits of this case, he thought that if he treated the Tramways Union in the same way as he had the guild he would be getting a® near the pnds of justice as he possibly could. The union would be fined £IOO. He was sorrv to do this, but there was another way of going about the matter, and if the union had followed the course in question it would have been much wiser.