THE DONKEYMEN CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19442, 30 October 1925, Page 6

THE DONKEYMEN CASE

HEARING CONTINUED /ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENCE DANGER OF INJURY [Per Press Association.} AUCKLAND, Oct. 29. The charge of intimidation preferred against the N.Z. Federation of Seamen was proceeded with to-day. Witnesses were called by the prosecution with a view to show that following the issue of a circular the firemen refused to work the valves, though accustomed to do so for many years. On Mr Young beginning his crossexamination, the Magistrate said the only question the Court had to decide was whether the men refused to do the work they ought to have done and had not done, and whether the refusal was the result of the issue of the circular. Mr Young replied: Well, the best thing is to sit down and say nothing. Mr Berendson, representing the Labour Department, quoted two authorities to show that the action of the men was a breach of the award, and contended that the action of the executive of the Seamen’s Federation was an in due emen t to an unlawful strike. Case for the Defence.

Mr Young, opening for the defence, said the prosecution had proved no signature to the circular sent out to the men directing them that they should no longer work valves or any other kind of machinery in the engineroom and stokehold of a ship. As a matter of fact, he was authorised to prepare the circular by the executive of the Federation, and took full responsibility for it. No one should operate valves unless he was a duly certified engineer. He contended the award illegally imposed on donkeymen and firemen the duty of looking after engines and auxiliaries, but, with a view, no doubt, of extricating itself from any legal issue that might be raised as to jurisdiction, the Arbitration Court inserted the words “as customary” after the word “auxiliaries.” “What did the men do!” contended Mr Young. “They told the engineers they would not work valves. They did not leave their work. They simply refused to carry out something that was unlawful.” Under Section 21 of the Seamen’s and Shipping Act, 1908 an engineer was an officer, and was required to hold a certificate. An incompetent man could not do the work of an engineer and attend to machinery. Mr Young alleged that many of the Northern Company’s vessels were undermanned, as far as engineers were concerned, to the danger of crew and passengers. The Magistrate: “What does it matter to you how many engineers a vessel carries! ” Mr Young: “When a ship is undermanned our men are required to attend to valves.” The Magistrate: “What is the objection to your men attending to valves!” Mr Young: “It is illegal.” The Magistrate: “So that is your objection. What is the harm!” Mr Young: “It is a matter of confining our men to work for which they are paid.” The Magistrate: “There is no harm in them doing this work, then.” Mr Young: “There may be a lot of harm. Inexperienced men may blow up the ship. There are cases where inexperienced men have been severely injured through attending to valves.” Mr Berendsen: “Can you cite a case!”

Mr Young said that in Australia a man was killed through steam escaping through a valve. The work was illegal, and imposed an additional hardship on the men. Regarding the refusal of the men to work, Mr Young said it would have to be proved that the command was lawful before the prosecution would succeed.

Patrick O ’Shea, assistant secretary of the Federated Seamen’s Union, Auckland, said he had worked as a greaser and a donkeyman on ships, but it was never his duty to attend to valves. John Kydd, Government inspector of machinery, and Captain Thomas Atwood, marine superintendent, were also called as witnesses. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.