CARPENTERS' PRESIDENT FINED

Chronicle (Levin), 6 March 1948, Page 3

CARPENTERS' PRESIDENT FINED

Press Association)

• k \ » 7 * ; ■ j « Boos And Hisses Greet Request By Counsel

V Per

WELLINGTON,. March 5. A cliorus of boos and hisses from the public" gallery of the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, today greeted 'a' request by Mr. • W. R. Birks (appeafing for .the prosecution)— following the conviction of Walter Francis Molineaux, a carpenters' union official, o]i a charge of encouraging a stri-ke — that the Court administer a penalty whieh would "deter otliers from similar action." Mr. J. H. Thompson, S.M., imposed a fine of £20. The incident was the climax of a hearing ocoiijpymg most of the day in which three officials of the Wellington and Hutt 'Valley branches of the New Zealand Carpenters, Joiners and •Joiners' Machinists' Union, were charged with breaches of the Strike and Lookout Emergcney Regulations 1939.

Ernest Lionel Tregoweth, secretary of the Wellington and Hutt Valley Carpenters' and Joiners' Union, was charged that on or about February 17 he procured a strike within the meaning of the term as defined in the Strike and Lookout Emergency . Regulations, 1939; also that he incited members of the union to strike. * Evidence given ■ in the early stages of the hearing was published yesterday. Ernest Alfrcd King, niaster builder, said that he eniployed three carpentens and his sun. On the morning of Pebruary 17 the carpenters were not . at work. An exeuse was uot given on tliat . day for the absences. He had been told the previous night that there would be a stop-work meeting. He had been sliown a paniphlet like the oue produced, by his eniployees. - To Alr. Arndt, the witness said there had been real reduction in his output to llie extent of four and a-lialf hours ' work by his carpenters. The witness had not been .on the job that day. (hiy Coulter Niehoison, ruaster builder, Paraparaumu, gave evidence of having been shown a pamplilet by oue of his eniployees, wlio had taken it, from an envelope which had "Permii A o- ti" iustead of an ordinary stanip. Will'red Ernest Joncs^ master buildifb lohl the Court t^iat the oight, or nine joiners eniployed in his. i'actory. were fibseiit on what he:took tp, ,be Eebyuary 1,7 unii/.lunchtinie, , The i'actory production, could not ,go on without tlium. ' a , ,961 Cifculars. , Phillip Henley Lewis, i/iquiry olli^of. at. the Chief Po^st Oflico, vVeilingtOi]}, gave evidence that the holder of.Hqx J 10, Te Aro, was the Alnalganiated Society of (,'arpentcrs ' Union. Tole-; phono 55-10.7 was ii| the hamb.pf/the' Carpenters and Joiners^'1 •UnibM 'i?.o.st-; ing pennit No. (j vvas.issued in 1945 to tiie Amalgainated' Society of Carpenters and .Joiners and Joiners' rMachinsts' liuluslriai Union. . The reeords ,shovved' that on February. 12, a posting'-Ondor thv pennit of 9UJ circuiars wa,a madq.at.Th ; . :* .. 1 Cross-examined, the vvilness said he, lliought it would -be quite- common for a union lo send out circuiars, Thomas Cleorge Eieldcr, inapector ■ of' factories, produced a copy of thc current New Zealand (cxccpt Otago and Southland) Carpenters' and Joiners' Award, 'made on July 7, 19-17. The award lield no provisioii for the holding of stop-work meetings , in ordinary 1 uorking hours. 1 JJetective-Sergeant Neil Mel'hee said 1 that at 9 a.in. on February 17, with i Hetective Harper, he called at the Time Theatre, wliere there was a notice indieating that a carpenters' meeting would be liehl. At the door a man was askiug for Ihe production of cards from those entering the theatre. About 11.15 a.in. some'nien loft the theatre and live minutes later the main body oi Ihe meu loft. I This concluded the prosecution 's case. I Defence Witness. The only witness called for Ihe defence was Erauk Throssel, president of Ihe. Wellingt on brancli of the New Zeulaiid Carpenters' Union. He said lliat ihe union s rulos gave power to the brancli secretarv to call a meeting oi' members at any time. To .Mr. Hirks Ihe witness said that a meeting was called by the secretary on Eebruary 17 under iustructions of the union cxccutivo. It was ca-Ued by the pamplilet produced, signed by the dei'endant and J. Laidlaw.

Counsel 's Subniissions. Jl r, Arndt submittcd that the eharges should be dismissed on the grouuds, lirsl, lliat the meeting did not eonstitute a strike vvitliin the meaning of the regulations, and, socondly, that there was no proper legal9evidence that Ihe del'endanl had incited union nieni bers to bo a party to a strike. The meeting could not be brought within the meaning of the deiinition of "strike" in the regulations, said counsel. xlie proceeded to an examination of the deiinition of the \vord "strike". In this ease there had been no partial disrontinuance oi! the state of being. eniployed. The union members had merely been absent from work for two to three hours. Eniployment was a different thing from work, submitted Mr. Arndt. What the regulations had in mind was the iiiterference wholly or partially with employinent, not with absence from work. Nor had thc carpenters broken their contract of service. This was a quasi-criminal ease and must, he submitted, be construed fav'ourably towards the subject as . against the Crown. The Crown relied on "any reduction 'in the normal output of work," or something in tlie -nature of a go-slow. But reduction in the normal output would be expeeted to have continuity, and not be just eJ sliort absence at a meeting. It could not be said that the

defendant incited or procured a reduction in normal output of worlcers. The meeting had not interfered with the eft'ective conduct, of the building industry, said Mr. Arndt. On tlie question of incitement, there was no suc'li evidence before the Court. Nobody had been' shown to have received a circular or to have attended tlie meeting, as h result of receiving one. Eui'thermore, the circular did not. incite within the le^al meaiiing of that word. * 1 • Mr. Birks submitted that the meeting was a tempoi;ary discontinuance of tlie eniployment of ekch'.mah attending the meeting. The' attendanee at the meeting was a breaking oflthe contract of service as set. out in the.award. Decision was/reserved. : In tlie seeond case, Jaines Laidlaw, secretary of the Hutt Valley branch of the union, was'' charged with the incitement of Hutt Valley members of the union to be parties to a strike and also tliat he procured a strike. Tlie evidenl-e was on similar lines to that in Tregoweth 's case. Tregoweth gave evidence that Laidlaw had not given him permissiun to put Laidlaw 's name on the circular. No mail was posted by the Hutt Valley sub-branch through postal pennit No. 6. jln these circumstahces • Alr. '...Arndt, f(jr del'endant, asked that the eharges bo dismissed. i Decision was rekei'ved. ' ' ■ | President Pined. }The jtlutd 4efendant, Molineaux, president of the Tlutt Valley branch of the union, was charged with inciting or, alternatively, encouraging a strike. •Tlie charge 'jirqse, said Mr. Birks, out of defendant 's action on or about February 11 wheu he visited the ernpUS&fcV Shearer Ltd., building. .conUmei^L-LMr." Birks called Ernest Jack Upton, co-directpr ,of .the lirm, vvho stated that, on or 'ajildtu't Fol^-' 1'iiray 11 Molineaux paid hiiir a ylsi't Defendant told witness he , should pay. l|is workers 1 ^ p.bov h ^hd/ipinimuiu wage pfescrib'ed ih the awafd." Opou witness 's refusal to ,dp' th,is until; kjucli time as increases were ufficiall}/ re/ cjjOgnised, Molineaux said he would ad-; (|ress tlie Ilrm's eniployees.' 'Iin-doing so lfe had,.a^ far -as (witness ;remembered, told tlieju .they luu/no option but ." to carry out the .uniqir'a docisipn and goslow. " Mr. Arndt objected to this' testimony in that it was unsupported by further evidence. The Magistrate said there seemed to be cloar evidence of a breaeh of the regulations and lie would conviet Molineaux aceordingly.