Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

43 WORKERS IN COURT

SEQUEL TO ABATTOIR DISPUTE ORDERED TO COME UP FOR SENTENCE AUCKLAND, January 28. A sequel to the recent industrial troubles at the Auckland municipal abattoir was the appearance in the Magistrate’s Court of 43 of the employees who were each charged before Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., with being a party to a strike under the Strike and Lock-out Regulations 1939. The prosecutions were the first of their kind in the Auckland district.

The Court presented an unsual spectacle as the defendants responded to their names and lined up in rows six deep. Mr V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Inspector of Factories, who instigated proceedings and Mr W. R. Tuck represented the defendants, who pleaded guilty. Charges against nine other employees were withdrawn at the request of Mr Meredith and another man, J. Kermerly, who was represented by Mr Henry, pleaded not guilty. Mr Meredith said the regulations defined a strike as an act of any number of workers in discontinuing their employment wholly or partially. The defendants were charged with partial discontinuance of work. The charges were laid for Monday, January 19, when the men failed to work between 8 and 9 a.m. Their award made in August 1941 provided for employment for eight hours daily on five days a week. On this occasion there was ample work for the men, who were slaughtermen and labourers, to do, but they wilfully discontinued work. It was not an isolated instance. VINDICATION OF LAW “The object of these prosecutions,” said Mr Meredith, “is that there shall be a vindication of the law and that it be indicated that in these times the Emergency Regulations shall be obeyed.” Mr Tuck said he commended the impartial presentation of the case by Mr Meredith. A shortage of labour at the abattoir had caused fundamental conditions creating problems for both the management and the men themselves. It had involved considerable stress upon the men. One man had stated he had worked 70 hours in one week and had been brought out at all times to do so. Many men worked from 50 to 60 hours a week. They were paid overtime rates, but there was great strain and stress put on them. They approached the Auckland City Council and requested that labourers’ wages be increased so as to attract more labour. The council replied that it was prepared to discuss any conditions except rates of pay. Men continued to leave the works and the slaughtermen, who had nothing to gain by any dispute, acted simply to help the labourers. The council had achieved its purpose in obtaining the men’s assurance to continue working, said Mr Tuck in asking the Magistrate to take that into consideration when imposing any penalty. SLOGAN MODIFIED Mr Luxford said one of the greatest obstacles to the country changing oyer from a peace-time to a war footing was psychological difficulties. In time of war certain things had to be thrown overboard when the safety and security of the country was in danger. One of the slogans which labour was entitled to use in peace time that labour could be sold to the highest bidder had to be modified in time of war. He considered that the recent resolution adopted by the Auckland branch of the Federation of Labour was an unfortunate thing. With the labour shortage the adherence to that principle became exploitation. In the present case the men not being satisfied had used the old system adapted for peace time. The law of today said those things could not be done in the old way. . , . “The proper course in this case is not finally to dispose of the matter,” continued the Magistrate. “If I inflict the penalty of a fine now, I think the best ends of justice would not be properly served.” The defendants would be ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within the next 12 months. “You will not be called if your work is carried out in a proper spirit and manner,” he added. If there were an more breaches of regulations there would be no question of imposing fines and offenders would be sent to prison.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19420129.2.59

Bibliographic details

Southland Times, Issue 24655, 29 January 1942, Page 6

Word Count
700

43 WORKERS IN COURT Southland Times, Issue 24655, 29 January 1942, Page 6

43 WORKERS IN COURT Southland Times, Issue 24655, 29 January 1942, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert