HOOKS ON BAG CARGO.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 824, 24 May 1910, Page 2

HOOKS ON BAG CARGO.

V/ANAKA DEADLOCK. THE DEPARTMENT NONSUITED. Tho actions arising out of the alleged strike'of wharf labourers on the steamer "Wanaka were fiually disposed of yesterday, when Mr. W. It. llaselden gave his decision in the case which had been referred to tho Arbitration Court. Tho Inspector of Awards, Mr. C. E. Aldridge, proceeded against John Dowdall and 49 others, claiming *C 5 as penalty for alleged breach of Section 5 of the Industrial Conciliation aud Arbitration Act, 1908, in that on February 26 tho men l)ecame parties to a strike by workers. engaged in tho wharf labourers' industry. Defendant Dowdall conducted his own case, and Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for tho other defendants. • After one caso had been heard in the Civil Court it was .agreed that the others should bo adjourned pending the decision of the Arbitration Court on a case stated by his Worship, and agreed to by the parties. The Case in Silhouette. Tho following facts were admitted and proved in the case stated by the magistrate, and forwarded to tho Arbitration Court, with the cousent of the parties;— "For some years past tho use of hooks on bag cargo has been prohibited, but, the prohibition lias been constantly disregarded, and hooks used to the damage of the cargo. Hooks can be used on bag cargo without damage if used with car© and skill' The damage mentioned would occur through want of car© or skill. "The s.s. Wanaka arrived in Wellington on February 26 last with 600 tons of cement in bags. The labour superintendent or other officer of the U.S.S. Co. engaged all the available labour on the wharf to discharge this cargo. Something may have been said by him as to the uso I of hooks being prohibited, but I am of 1 opinion that no absolute condition was made that morning at the time of engagement that hooks were not to be used. "The men went to work about 0 a.m., and shortly after two men were first warned against using hooks, and afterwards were called up from below and discharged for using hooks on the cement. The work went on with more or less discontent until noon, when the men had their dinner hoar, and resumed at 1 p.m. "Immediately after 1 p.m. an order was I peremptorily and absolutely given that I men using hooks were to knock off work. I In a few minutes a man was found using a hook, and was told to put down his hook or come up. The man came up, and was followed by the rest of the men in that hatch, and shortly after the men in I the other hatches camo up on hearing that a man had been "sacked" for using a hook.

"Tho handling of the ccment in bags without hooks is a much moro . severe toil than handling it with hooks. This cargo had not been regularly stowed, and I the lugs of the bags were sometimes hidden, and the hags were sometimes interlocked. No work was done on Saturday after the men left, but after some conferences the employers agreed on Monday to put two extra mer. into each hold, and the work was resumed and completed. Wharf, labourers are not engaged for any fixed period, and can be discharged at any moment without notice. They are working under an award dated March 24, 1908. The questions subI mitted are:— "(a) Did a strike occur under cirI cumstances stated? "(b) Have the defendants taken part in such strike?" As Judge Sim Saw It. Mr. Justice Sim forwarded tho following reply to the ca&e stated'"lt is clear from the case as stated that there was a discontinuance of employment by tho workers in question within tin meaning of Section 3 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, lflOS. Before, however, that discontinuance can amount ! to a strike it nvust ; be established that discontinuance took place in pursuance of an agreement or common understanding, either express or implied, between the workers concerned, and that tho intention of compelling or inducing the company to agree to allow the use of hooks was to put extra men into the holds to dq tho work. These points are not dealt with in the case as stated, and this Court is unable, therefore, to express an opinion on the questions submitted. The case is remitted to the Magistrate's Court with this answer:— "There was no strike unless the magistrate is satisfied that thero was an agreement or common understanding as above mentioned, and that work was discontinued in pursuance thereof, and with tho intention above mentioned." Argument. Mr. Aldridge, inspector for the Labour Department, urged tliat it was quite clear from the evidence. that there was an agreement and common understanding. The witnesses 'he had called in DowdaU's case showed that the men had been asked to continue work, and had -refused. He had further evidence to show that prior to tho discontinuance, of work the whole thing "had been carefully planned, and ii' the Court would, 'not insist that the cases would bo dismissed in consequence of the Arbitration Court's reply, he would call further evidence, which would prove beyond question that work had been discontinued because the men had agreed beforehand that if hooks ; were not permitted they would cease

Mv. o'Rega.n submitted that the Court's answer was exactly what might havo been expected from the facts as stated. If the more discontinuance of work meant a strike,' then the case would never have been contested, but the essence of a breach of Sect/on 3 was not tho discontinuance of work, but the combination to' discontinue. Ordinarily, the word "combination" was used in contradistinction to conspiracy, but under Section 3 tho combination mentioned was an. agreement to do an illegal act, and, therefore, the word meant conspiracy. The inspector of awards had not contended, nor had his evidence proved, the existence of any such combination. The case had been stated by his Worship on facts agreed to»bybotli parties. These facts showed that the case was absolutely different from any other in which a strike was alleged, because in every other case the men had first made a demand, and had intimated that work would be discontinued unless that demand was conceded. Such was not the case in 'this instance, hence he (counsel) would nsk for a dismissal. Finale. His Worship said he had given the facts the most careful consideration, and all ho could do v;as to place himself in ' the same position as the Court of ArbiI tration. The Court had .decided in effect : that the case as stated did not disclose a strike. In other words, . that if the case eame before that tribunal on these facts' it would be dismissed. Now, ho knew of no other facts, and accordingly it seemed clear, to him that there was only the one course open! Air. Aklridgc said that under these circumstances ho would have to.take the case to the Court of Arbitration and call evidence. Jlis Worship thought it would bo a most mischievous precedent if, after a ease had been stated with the consent of both parties, it would be supplemented by further evidence. Mr. ursed that, having agreed to shvie a ease, the inspector was absolutely precluded from calling any further evidence. • "

"Tlio Arbitration Court," said his Worship, "has had befc.ro it all the facts 'that this Court had, and was unable to say that these facts amounted to a strike." He was in the ram« position. A jmUmeirt of non-suit would be entered in each ca c e. No costs woukl be awarded on either side.