THE FREEZING DISPUTE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19768, 16 February 1927, Page 9

THE FREEZING DISPUTE

WAS IT A STRIKE? ARGUMENT IN ARBITRATION COURT (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Feb. 15. In the freezing workers’ dispute, which was continued before the Arbitration Court to-day, the employers combated the workers’ claim that 12s should be substituted for 8s in the minimum wage clause. Mr Sanderson, for the employers, asked thiat the Court restore the 1924 rates and asked the Court whether it wished to hear evidence regarding the refusal of the men to engage in work, or in regard to strikes. Mr Sill, the workers’ representative asked whether Mr Sanderson were not indicting the union in the eyes of the Court in a matter in which it had no jurisdiction. Mr Justice Frazer: “We can only deal with the preference clause. Officially, as a Court, we do not know anything of the circumstances of the occurrences of last year, except what we read in the newspapers, or whether that can be taken as correct. There is something from each side and the statements do not tally. We as a Court, cannot assume any judicial knowledge of that. The definition of f strike’ implies a cessation of work. Merc combination is not strike.” Mr Sanderson: “I am not particularly stressing that it was a strike but that it had the same effect as a strike. His Honour: No doubt, but “strike” is a defined term and the Court cannot say that any union has been guilty of a strike unless the facts brought the occurrences within the definition of a strike. Mr Sanderson: I submit that the Court cannot ignore the inferences that these men refused engagement. His Honour: The Court can draw an inference that there is war from newspapers, but I do not think the Court can take judical knowledge of what is an industrial offence without confirmation. The offence must bo proved. As ordinary members of the community we know that there were disturbances in November last, but I do not know that we can assume from that knowledge that the union has committed an offence. There is a difference between a number of men taking the wrong course and the union taking that course. You ask us to assume that some breach of award took place last November, without any evidence at all. Mr Sanderson: I wish chiefly to point out the advisability of deleting the preference clause—if not the whole of it,* at least those portions affecting the freezing industry and learners. His Honour: You have a right if the union has assisted in a strike or encouraged a strike or done anything in the way of concerted action to defeat the terms of the award, to claim deletion of the preference clause. Mr Sanderson said ho would call what evidence he had, and evidence was called by him to prove that tallies had been restricted by the workers so that while fast men could finish their tallies at 4.15 p.m., the slow men could finish the same tally at 5 p.m.