STRIKE PROSECUTIONS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16941, 16 January 1923, Page 8

STRIKE PROSECUTIONS.

SEAMEN IN COURT. FINES IMPOSED. Some weeks ago informations were aid by the Labour Department a gam.si a large number of members of the Sea men’s Union, alleging that they hac become parties to a strike. The pro ceedings arose out. of the recent ship ping hold-up. In the Magistrate’s Court this morning a commencemeni was made with the hearing of the cases. Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., presiding | Mr A. T. Donnelly appeared for tin I plaintiff, the Inspector of Awards (Mi T. G Fielder) and Mr F. D. Sargent defended. Mr Donnelly said there were a num her of cases against the seamen anc firemen on the Wahine. but it was pro posed t-o take one case only in order ti hare the advantage of the decision oi the Court before considering thi others. There were also cases m con 1 nection with two other steamers, the Canopus and Wanaka. and it was proposed to adopt the same course witl: these if the Court approved. The Magistrate agreed to this proposal. ' The first case taken was that of W. Or me, a seaman, residing at the Lyt I el ton Hotel. Lyttelton. The plaintiff claimed from defendant the sum of £ll as a penalty under section 5 of the In dustrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act. The particulars of the alleged offence were:—That on November 11 defendant then being bound bv the seamen’s and firemen’s award did become a party to a strike bv seamen and firemen on the s.». Wahine at Lvttetmt. Mr Donnelly quoted the sections o the Act dealing with such cases. T( commence with, lie said, the plaintif bad to establish that a strike took plac< and that defendant was a party to it There wore three elements in th< definition of the offence undr tin Amending Act of 1908 Tn the firsi place it must be proved that the mer • •eased work : secondly that a combination existed, and thirdly that th< stopping of work was done with the in tention of bringing about one. or mor< of the conditions defined in the section WAHIXE’S MEN. With regard to the W ahine, Mr Donnelly continued, a new award came intc operation on November 1. Immediate ly upon the award coming into opernon a number of ships were laid u[ as they came into Lyttelton, it beins m possible for the companies to obtair crews to cany tnem on. That, then was the position between November ) -nd 10. On November 10 the whole of the crew of the Wahine when in Wellington applied for and obtained from the captain permission to attend a specia meeting of the union. Prior to thi.‘ stage there had been no suggestion by the men that they had any intentior of leaving the ship. Under the article? of employment an individual workei bad the right to leave his employ men! upon giving twenty-four hours’ notice. he Wahine’s men went away to tht meeting, and, returning about clever o’clock that morning, every man gave notice that he would leave on the arrival of the ship at Lyttelton. Nc reason was given by the individual mer ■ banding in their notices, except that, in some instances, general statements were made by one or two oj the men that they had no option. They left the ship when she arrived at Lyttelton, and under the circumstances it was plain that they acted in concert or combination. V. Therefore the only question was that oi intent. On that branch of the case the Court would be asked to inter from the general situation of tbe whole of tbe shipping business at the time- — from the fact that there had been dissatisfaction with the award and that the whole of the shipping at Lyttelton was being laid up—that the cessation of work had as its object the inconveniencing of or causing loss to the employers, or else ni desire to bring pressure upon the employers in soni*' way to. vary the terms of the award. EVIDENCE OF WAFINE’S OFFICERS. The first witness called was Captain W. D. Cameron, master of the Wahine. whose evidence followed the lines of counsel’s opening statement. A(r Sargent: I think it is admitted that all the men gave the requisite And no attempt was made to get Free labour for at bast five weeks? - Not for the Wahine. When a call was made there was no difficulty in obtaining labour?—No. The chief engineer of the Wa’nina Ernest Lowe, gave evidence as to the men handing in them notice. To Mr Sargent: He did not- know of any demand for altered conditions nor was he actually aware that th ?• meeting of the union took place. Air Donnelly’: You know, however, that there was dissatisfaction with the new award?—Yes. Formal evidence was given by T. G Fielder. Inspector of Awards, the plain tiff. Captain F. S. Horn marine superintendent at Lyttelton for the Union Steam Ship Company, said the new award came into force on November 1 last year. Up till that time he had had no difficulty whatever with the Counsel for plaintiff was proceeding to lead evidence on the state of affairs when the new award came in. Objection was raised by Mr Sargent who submitted that evidence in tlvs case must be against Orme and not l>e a general statement. The Magistrate said Orme was a member of a body of men and if evidence was not- given concerning these he did not know huw it could be obtained. The witness, proceeding, said that after November I vacancies were accruing on ships and difficulty was found in tilling them. From November 1 to November 10 there were about eight ships laid up. Air Sargent objected to evidence being given about other ships, but the Magistrate ruled that the evidence was admissable. He agreed to take a note ot counsel’s objection. Witness said that the Karori arrived at Lyttelton on October 30. Two men gave notice and were signed off. F.f forts were made to fill the vacancies but no one would accept engagement, though there were quite a number ot men who were available. The Tvatoa and Kaikorai. which arrived on November 2, the Kakapo and other vessels were similarly affected. The trouble Was that one or two men would give notice and the vacancies could not be filled. Air Sargent:- Every now and again there’s trouble with the crew whether a strike is on or not?--There is always someone wanting to go ashore. The Union Company is dissatisfied with the award itself isn’t it?—l don’t AGENT FOR THE UNION. Felix Newfield, agent for the Seamen's Union at Lyttelton, was called ' by the prosecution. , He said bis duties

were to collect dues and send them to Wellington weekly, though occasionally, if there was a small dispute, he might go and see the master of the vessel. Several meetings of - the union had been held in November. He did not know what the union thought of the new award. He was not aware what happened at the meeting of the union just after the new award came into force as it did not interest him. In applying for a non-suit Air Sar gent contended that the prosecution should prove that action was taken to compel the employers to agree to other terms of employment or with the intention of causing a loss. Ho sub mitt-ed that the prosecution had ent-ire-Alr Donnelly replied that intent notices given, lie submitted, were merely in accordance with a system of abandoning employment by practically the whole of the men employed on the trade. The only inference could he that they did so with the object of in convenienoing ti e Union t.ompaviy or protesting against the award. AMOUNTED TO A STRIKE. The Magistrate said it was plain that the men had acted in concert and all he ha-rl to consider was what was the intent. He thought it was more than a coincidence that the men left possible to get others to take their places, so that as many as eight vessels were held up because no labour was offering. He could only draw the conclusion that the action of the men amounted to a strike. QUESTION OF PENALTY. Dealing with the question of tlio penalty Air Sargent said that- in the cases in the North Island, which included the Maori. the penalty was £2, and the circumstances were similar to the present case. The Alagistrate said he did not want to be unduly hard on the men, but servants, who engaged on this work, seamen, deckhands or firemen, must bear in mind that their service was of far more importance to the community than that of men engaged on small coastal boats. Their action in causing a strike severed communication between the North and South Islands. He supposed if the men on the Maori were fined only £2- there was no reason why the Wahine’s men should l>e penalised to a greater extent. At the same time, because the affair had passed, it was >To reason why the matter should be treated lightly. He would fix the penalty at £2. Security for appeal was fixed at £lB. Other members of the crew of the W ahine against whom prosecution** have been' brought are :—Fred Matheson. John Collins. G. Wilson, William Carle, John Hardwicke, T. W. Smith. William I). Jones. J. Harwood. G. Holden. P. Singleton. Robert Dunlop, John Alaedonald, David Kelly. Wilfred Mason. C. E. Radcliffe. J. Hentiesay. •I- Mulhearn. J. Robertson, W. H Sherwood. John Stephens, H. Turner, and J. A Turk ham. CASE OF THE WANAKA. Evidence a« to the hold-up of the Wanaka was taken next. J. Smith, fireman, resident at Sawyer’s Bay, Dunedin, was proceeded against for being a party to a strike on the Wenaka on November 7. the penalty claimed being again £lO. Evidence was that the Wanaka usual carried three more than her complement in the stokehold. The vessel was at Timaru when one fireman de serted. The ship was brought on to Lyttelton and apparently, owing to the congested state of the waterfront, the captain was ordered, before the vessel had tied up, to proceed to Wellington. The vessel started for Wellington, but when she had got about two thirds of the wav to the Heads the whole of the stokehold crew came on deck and told the captain they were not going to work the ship, and she put back to Lyttelton. Captain J. G. Watson, in the course of his evidence, said he endeavoured to get the men to proceed, but they re- i fused. The Alagistrate said the men on the ship were parties to a strike while at sea. which was a much more serious offence. The penalty in this case would be £4. An information has been laid against one other member of the crew, P. Hart, and further cases ai*'» pending in connection with the Wanaka- occurrence. THE CANOPUS. Seven men were concerned in the case of the Canopus, but in some in stances members of the crew have not yet been served with their summonses, i'he case proceeded with was that, against Janies Day. Mr Donnelly said the circumstances Wahi yery similar tc that ol tbe Captain E. R. Price, master of the Canopus, said the vessel arrived in Lyttelton from West Coast ports on Thursday, November 9. On the the Saturday the crew, with the exception of one man, whose” home port was Dunedin, gave notice, and left the following day. Corroborative evidence was given by James Kennedy Stewart, chief engineer of the C anopus. The Alagistrate said he did not think the cas6 was as strong as that against the Wahine’s crew. ‘‘l don't think I shall find on the somewhat scanty evidence that the intention of these men was to strike within the meaning of the Act of L 908.” said the Alagistrate. in reviewing the facts he said the case wns somewhat different from the others. There was no evidence that the men lad attended any meetings of the union or that there had been any interference with them by other men. Judgment would be entered for the defendAir Donnelly said he did not intend to proceed further with the remainder jf the Canopus cases. (Proceeding.)