WATERSIDE WORKERS

Otago Witness, Issue 3212, 6 October 1915, Page 38

WATERSIDE WORKERS

INTERESTS OF RIVAL UNIONS. AN IMPORTANT DECISION. GREYMOUTH, October 4. A sequel to the 1913 strike, concerning the conflicting interests of two watersiders’ unions at Greymouth, was submitted to the Arbitration Court sittings here in the middle of September. .The facts of the case showed that the plaintiff union was registered under the Arbitration Act, 1899, and in 1913 was working under a court award, the term of which expired at the end of January, 1914. Three months prior to its expiry the union struck in common with other waterside unions in the dominion. The strike continued till December 16, 1913, when it was resolved to resume work, notice of such desire being served on the shipping companies. Meanwhile another union was formed, its registration being accepted by the registrar on December 18, notwithstanding that the old union protested by wire before the date of registration of the new union. The new union continued to work under practically the same conditions, and also under the union’s award until February 3, 1915, when an, industrial agreement between the new union and the shipping companies was made, three days after the expiry of the date of the old award. The questions for the court were ;

(a) The plaintiff union having struck, is its aw'ard of March, 1913, still valid and binding on the parties 1 (b) Has a breach of the aw r ard been committed by the defendants, the shipping companies ? The court held that -when members of the old union went out on strike they destroyed the fundamental basis of the award, and that, having repudiated their obligations, they surrendered the rights and privileges provided by the award by striking. The old union not only committed a breach of the Act, _ for which penalties were provided individually, as well as collectively, but compelled the employers to find other workers, and entitled them to enter into an industrial agreement with the new union, which was lawfully registered and prepared to do the work. In regard to the plaintiff’s claims that its members were prepared to do the w r ork before the new union was actually registered ; also that its award then again became operative, the court drew a simile with the Germans in regard to their inter-

national treaty as a mere scrap of_ paper, binding only'when it suited their own purposes. If such a view of the award were upheld, it would be absolutely destructive of industrial morality and good faith. The court found nothing in the Act to justify the contention that the claims were within the union’s legal rights, pointing out that the penalty clauses for striking did not appear to deal with relative rights of the parties when a strike occurs, but merely prescribed penalties. By having deliberately repudiated the award, and by striking, and so violated an essential of the object of the Act, the plaintiff union had forfeited all right to revoke the award for the benefit of its members. The court was further of opinion that under subsection 1, section 90, of the principal Act, providing for awards continuing in force until a new award was made, the industrial agreement with the new union of February 3 superseded and put an end to the old union’s award of March, 1913.