AN ALLEGED STRIKE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18336, 2 March 1934, Page 9

AN ALLEGED STRIKE

WATERFRONT DISPUTE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. Tlni homing was coatinuoil to-.my of the case in which the inspector of awards proceeded against 59 waterside workers claiming a penalty oi £o from each, alleging that they took parin an unlawful strike arising out of a dispute with their employers about conditions of employment. Evidence w.ns given by Captain A. ,i. \ iyici', head .lev* dor: for the No;;/' h-.ad Shipping Company, r.ip rvr: Vcxandor . Black. head stevedore *of <ho Shaw, Ravxll and Albion .Company, and Hugh Andrew McLeod, contractor and stevedore. For the defence, Mr Roberts ?aid that it was agreed that the men concerned in the case were members of the Wellington Waterside Workers’ Union, which was bound by an industrial agreement reached under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act for repair work, but the union was not bound by an industrial agreement or any other agreement for the work of loading and discharging ships. “We agree,” said Mr Roberts, “that the defendants were engaged on the Or.ari, but we do not agree they were engaged to finish the ship. We hold that they were perfectly entitled in the circumstances to refuse to work overtime, and that the .action of one' of the employers’ agents was the principal reason for the men’s action. Wo contend that, in refusing to work overtime. the defendants did not commit a breach of any law. We deny that they acted collectively through their spokesman, but we admit that, individually, they demanded that: they be paid for the same time as the men engaged on the ship.” Mr Roberts also said it was denied that the defendants, by their action, had created a dispute in relation to their conditions of employment within the meaning of the Act.

The ease for the defence had not been completed when the court adjourned.