ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3036, 22 May 1912, Page 32

ARBITRATION COURT.

LABOURERS' UNION PROSECUTED. AUCKLAND, May 14. The Arbitration Court continued its sittings this morning, when the Inspector of Factories proceeded against the General Labourers',Union for a breach of the Arbitration Act by inciting a strike. It "will-he'remembered that last spring the men-engaged on the city drain works objected to sub-contracting, and a general strike .ensued. 'Mr A. E. Skeßc-n said that as amicus curiaß he wished to state that the union had cancelled its registration under the act and had actually ceased to exist as a..body corporate.. There was really no union to sue, as it did not exist in law.

Mr Selwyn Mays (for the department) contended that such a position would not be tolerated for a moment, and he urged that the"" union was still answerable for any wrongful acts committed while it was under the jurisdiction of the actrMr Justice Sim said the court would consider-the point, and in the meantime would hear the evidence. A number of witnesses were then called, including, the city engineer, who said that on October 24 Mr Arns (secretary of the onion) rang him up and said the executive bad decided to call a strike. In answer to a remonstrance the president and secretary of the union told him that they were practically forced to call the men out.

Mr E. A. Johns (Inspector of Awards) prrxluced copies of the resolutions passed oy the union endorsing the action of the executive " in calling the men out in the drainage works." -Mr Skelton, in opening the case for the defence, said that quite a number of men came out of their own accord without any instigation from the union or its officials. He would also call evidence to show that the meeting at which objection to sub-con-tracting was endorsed was not a meeting of the union at all. It was merely a small meeting of drainage workers, who could , not be said to voice by anything they did the opinions of the union as a union. Other meetings that were deposed to were not legal meetings—merely haphazard fathorings —and the resolutions were not linddug on the union. His Honor : The resolution endorsed the -actions of the executive. Do you suggest 4hat that meeting was not properly .called? ' Mr Skelton s That was merely a meeting

of drainage workers, and was not called in accordance with the rules.

His Honor: If your argument holds true the union can escape by merely not complying with every formality. Every member might be present, but owing to some trifling informality the union could disclaim any responsibility for any wrongful act that might be committed. Mr Skelton: I contend that if the members of the union are to be rendered liable for some act each and every one of them must have had an opportunity of voting or voicing his opinion upon it. Counsel called a number of witnesses in support of his opening statement: F. Arns (secretary of the union) said the men first ceased work and were not called out by the executive. .

His Honor asked witness how he reconciled that with his statement to Mr Bush.

Witness would not say that Mr Bush was making a misstatement, but he said he felt there must have been a misunderstanding. What witness said was that the men were out.

His Honor: If your evidence to-day is true the minute of a resolution endorsing the action of the executive in calling the ixen out contains an untruth. Why did you allow this to appear as a minute? After a good deal of hesitation, witness said he could not explain that away. * His Honor: Is not the position this: that the minute is true and your evidence is untrue? Do you seriously ask us to believe that your executive had nothing to do with calling out the men? Witness : A portion of them did. His Honor: Which? Witness: Myself. His Honor: Who else?

Witness: Corbett, the organiser. La answer to further questions, witness replied that he could not say Fraser (president of the union) had even expressed disapproval of the strike. Witness was never authorised by the executive to call the men out.

P. Fraeer (the president) was also pressed as to why he allowed a minute to go on the books. Witness suggested that when the men were excited they were not so particular as to terminology as they would be when calm.

His Honor: When they get excited they put lies on the books? Witness did not agree that it was a Ho.

His Honor: Ie it not a fact that if your evidence is true the minute embodies a lie? Witness went so far as to admit that a mistake had been allowed to creep into the minutes. His Honor : You ask us to believe that you were so excited that you did not notice this was in the minutes? Witness:. An error has crept in. His Honor. Has this error been corrected? Witness: I don't suppose it has been thought about since. Mr Mays: I believe your advice to the men was "Keep cool; don't get excited "? Witness: Apparently it was not followed. His Honor intimated that the court would consider the matter. WATERSIDE WORKERS' DISPUTE. AUCKLAND, May 15. Judgment was given in the Arbitration Court to-day by Mr Justice Sim in the matter of an industrial dispute between Nearing and Co. and other employers and the Auckland Waterside Workers' Industrial Union of Workers. The application (made by the employers) for an award was dismissed on the ground that if the operation of cancelling the union's registration under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act had Eursued its proper course, it would have een impossible for the court to have made an award. COMPENSATION CLAIM. AUCKLAND, May 14. In the case John Robin v. the Union Steam Ship Company, claiming compensation for loss of voice through injury sustained by accident while in the company's employ, the Arbitration Court awarded £39 Is, being of opinion that the claimant's hoarseness did not interfere with his employment as wharf labourer.

ALLEGED INCITEMENT TO STRIKE. LABOURERS' UNION FINED. CASE AGAINST WATERSIDE WORKERS DISMISSED. AUCKLAND, May 16. The Arbitration Court fined the Builders and Contractors General Labourers' Indus-

trial Union £6O and costs for instigating, inciting, and ordering a strike of members of the union who were engaged on drainage works in Auckland city. The dispute arose over objecting to ingJudge Sim said : This was 'a strike by these workers, and it -appeared to have been instigated by the secretary without the express authority of the union or of the Committee of Management. That committee had, however, ratified and adopted his action shortly afterwards. On October 26 an informal meeting of members of the union discussed the strike aind appointed pickets. On October 27 a general meeting of members was held, in accordance with a newspaper advertisement, following which had oeen published a notice (signed by the secretary) that the GeneraJ Labourers' Union had declared a strike. It was clear. that at this meeting all that had been done in connection with the strike was approved. The union must be taken, therefore, to have adopted and ratified the acts of the secretary and the Committee of Management in connection with the strike, and from that date, at anyrate, whatever the position may have been before, the union was guilty of aiding, abetting, and the continuance of an unlawful strike. The judge held that the cancellation of the registration of the union (November 1, 1911) did not render it impossible for the court to give judgment at that stage against the union for penalty. A proviso of the act expressly limited the effect of cancellation so as to preserve the obligations of the union in respect of any penalty or liability incurred prior to cancellation. "We hold, therefore," concluded his Honor, " that judgment can be given against the union for a penalty for an offence committed by it on and after October 27, by aiding and abetting the continuance of an unlawful strike." In the esse against the Waterside Workers' Industrial Union arising out of the trouble in connection with the discharging of the steamer Paparoa, Judge Sim said : "It is clear that the secretary was aiding and abetting the men. but the question to be deternr'ned is whether the union could be held responsible for Collett'B action. His letters in the matter were signed by him as secretary of the union. Collett's action had not been expressly authorised by the union at a formal meeting. The court held that Collett's acts could not be regarded as part of his duties as secretary of the union, for so long as the union was registered the promotion of strikes could not be considered as part of the business of the union. Judgment must therefore be for the defendant union." " It is difficult," his Honor added, "-to understand why, in the first instance, the proceedings were taken against the union instead of against Collett and the men who took part in the strike. It is still more difficult'to understand why) when the question of the union's responsibility in the matter was raised in the Magistrate's Court, proceedings in this court were taken against the union instead of against Collett and the. men. . The course adopted rather, suggests that the object was to make a brave show of enforcing the law, and ait the same time not to incur much risk of hurting anyone." It is understood that steps are being taken with a view to bringing a similar action against the secretary of the union (Mr Collett) and. the members of the union who struck work while employed on the Paparoa.

CRITICISM OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT. WELLINGTON, May 18. In reference to the prosecution by the Labour Department of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union for a strike, as some reflection is being cast upon the action of the department in prosecuting the union instead of the men concerned, the Minister has authorised the following statement to be published :—(1) It was on the advice of the Orown Law Office that the union was prosecuted; (2) when the defence was raised in the Magistrate's Court that in this case the union was not responsible for tihe. action of its officers, the magistrate advised the inspector to withdraw the case and file it afresh in the Court of Arbitration in order to settle the important question liaised. Thie course was followed, and the Crown Solicitor was engaged by the department to conduct the case; (3) action is now being taken against the men concerned. In rega.rd to the decision of the Arbitration Court at the hearing of the dispute between certain employers and the Waterside Workers' Union, in this eaee th« court ruled that the cancellation of the registration of the union should not have been withheld by the registrar on the ground that the application for cancellation was received by him before the proceedings for the hearing of the dispute were commenced. The reply of the department is that it appea.rs to have been stated in court that the date of the com. meneement of the proceedings was the 31st January, one day after the application for cancellation was received. Official advice received from Auckland by the registrar as to the date of th« commencement of the proceedings was the 9th January (not the 31st). 21 clays before the application for cancellation was received. It is required by the act that when proceedings in an industrial dispute have been commenced, before an application for cancellation is made cancellation must be held over by the registrar until the dispute is disposed of.