WAS STRIKE INCITED?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1346, 25 January 1912, Page 6

WAS STRIKE INCITED?

MERCHANT GUILD CASE. CAPTAIN WATSON'S EVIDENCEWHY OFFICERS LEFT. JUDGMENT RESERVED A WEEK. The ca?c in which the Inspector of Awards proceeded against the Wellington Merchant Service- Guild to recover as penalty for alleged instigation to an unlawful strike was continued in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. The socalled strike was that of officers of certain small coastal steamers during September and October of last year. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., was on the bench. Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared for the Inspector of Awards, and Mr. A. L. Herdman was counsel for the Merchant Seyrice Guild. Captain Watson, secretary of the guild, continued his evidence. He stated that an award had been made on September 18, and on September 22 he returned to Wellington from Dunedin, and was then met by officers, w.ho notified him they would not work under that award. Up till that time he had confined his energies to endeavouring to bring about an understanding between. the Owners' Federation and the officers. As far as he could recollect, the first officer who left wont out on September 27 or September 28. That officer was Mr. Gibson, mate of the Kiripaka. Mr. Ostler: Mr. Renner has sworn that it was on September 29. Captain -Watson: It may have been the 29th. Captain Watson, continuing his evidence, said that other officers left their vessels before October 2, but neither he nor his union had had anything whatever to do with that. He was not aware that there had been anything in tlie nature of concerted action. As to tho men who left after October 2, he had certainly had nothing to do w,ith s that. but no doubt the fact that others had gone out.influenced them somewhat. ?,'o" meeting of the guild's executive had been called, and the union, as a union, did not at anytime induce any of the officers to come out. As secretary of the union he had no vote on any committee. Mr. Ostler: Is that in the rules? Mr. Her'dinan: He is not a member of the - imion. He is a paid servant. Mr. O.stler: He is a member of the executive. Surely, ho has a vote! Mr. Herdman perused the rules, and said that, as far as he could see, there was nothing in them relating to this subject.

Mr. Ostler, however, obs«rT<-d that the rules implied that Captain Watson had a rote. Captain Watson: I have always understood that I hare no vote. Captain Watson, proceeding, stated that some of the men who came ashore went to Sydney. Their reason for leaving was dissatisfaction with the award. Of the 270 members of the union, something over thirty came out. Newspaper Extracti. Mr. Ostler: All the rest of the mombors of the union were not bound by the award. They were Union Steam Ship Company men. Mr. Hcrdman to Captain Watson: Is that so? Captain Watson: Oh, they were not all bound by the award. Only the officers on the small boats wero affected; the balance had nothing to do with it. Mr. Herdman: Then we may take it that the great proportion knew nothing about it? Captain Watson: Only what they saw in the newspapers. That is about all. i Mr. Ostler: 1 suppose you are in the habit of carrying ont tho instructions of your Management Committee? Captain Watson: Yes. I suppose, then, that they were aware that you sent those telegrams?—" There was never a meeting held." But were they not aware of it?—"A few of those who were in Wellington were." Is this not frankly the position: that you thought that, if the men came out before the coming into operation of the award, they would not be liable?—" No. When I returned from Dunedin, I saw several of tho officers, and they said that they were not going to work under the award." • liutis not what I suggested to you what you really thought was the position? Captain Watson hesitated. Mr. Ostler: I have newspaper. cuttings here stating that that is what you said to reporters. Captain Watson made some reply as to tho correctness of what reporters say. Subsequently.he. answered: "Yes, that was my idea. I thought that -was the position if the men camo out, but not if the guild culled them out." Mr. Ostler road from The Dominion of September 30 (a Saturday) an extract which was attributed to Captain Watson. It ran: "If they delayed until Monday any concerted action would be called a, strike by the Court, and they would be severally liable to a fine of £W," Mt. Ostler asked Captain Watson if he made ■ that statement. Captain Watson: I don't remember making that statement. It may be true.

From the same issue of The Dominion, Mr. Ostler read this extract, which he desired f:o know if tho witness would admit having made: "Strike? Nothing of the kind," eaid Captain Watson, discussing the situation with a Dominion reporter yesterday. "The men are simply exercising their right to cease working under conditions with which they are not satisfied, and they are doing it in a perfectly legal way, after giving the notice which is required of them .in their articlas." Captain Watson: I believe I made that statement. Mr. Ostler: Do you really mean to state that, with all tho negotiations which were going on, there was never a meeting of the Management Committee, nor of the executive, of the guild?— "Never. The only meeting was between members who were out of employment and the federation." Mr. Ostler: The "Evening Post" of October 6 states: "Members of the guild have been discussing the situation today, but there was nothing that Captain Watson, the secretary, felt at liberty to give to the press." Captain Watson: I am not responsible for what appears in the press. Mr. Ostler: But that is what you stated to a member of the press! The Minute Book. Mr. Ostler: Do you keep minutes of tho meetings of the guild?— Yes. When was , the last meeting, before September 29 ?—"September 28, 1911." Is there any reference to the dispute in those minutes? —"None whatever." Have you any objection to my seeing them? —"None whatever." Mr. Ostler, perusing the ininnte book: There were present, I see, some, of tho officers who afterwards left their ships. AVlicn was the next meeting?—" October What was ■. that meeting?—"A general meeting of members." Oh. I see, although you didn't have meetings of the executive, or the Management Committee, you had general meetings ot members, of.which you kept minutes.—"Meetings for the passing of accounts, eto." Was there any reference to the trouble? —"No. It was a meeting of those who were out of work, nnd naturally they c'ime up to the guild room." Mr. Hcrdman: It is a kind of club room, isn't it?—" Yes. They come up. and play draughts, choss, and that kind of thing." Mr. Ostler: At that meeting on September 25 was there nothing said about this impending trouble?—"l can't remember. Someone may havo mentioned it, but there was no business transacted in connection with it." Will you tell the Court on your oath that any one nf those wires were Rent as replies to telegrams from the officers.-— "Yes." Cm von produce them?—" Yes. 1 think I have them at the office." Very well, I shall ask you to produce them'to the Conrt. Do you not. know, »; a matter r>{ fact, thit not one of those officers gssa notice

before September 29?—"1 could not say. I don't remember." A Press Association, message sent from Invorcargill on October it staled: "News was received from Bluff at 11.H0 to-night that the mates of tho steamer Breeze wish it to be distinctly understood that they are out on strike. Acting under instructions from Captain Watson, secretary of the Merchant Service Guild, they will proceed with the vessel to Dunedin, and leave her there. They also say that there is no doubt that unless their demands are acceded to tlie Union Company's mates will go out." Mr. Ostler (continuing): Is that true that they were acting under instructions from you! , —-"No;'those men wrro not members of the guild. They wired me, and 1 advised them that if they were going out. they should take their vessel to the homo port." Didn't you send them a wire before?— "I may have dono so." But will you deny that you sent a wire to the officers of the Breeze: "Don't proceed any further"? Of course you can't deny it! The wire is in. Captain Watson: I don't remember sending it. If tho wire is in I will admit sending it. The matter of other telegrams was dealt with in the cross-examination, and then Mr. Ostler asked: Can you deny in the face of these wires that you were asking these men to come out?—"No, I don't deny that." Why did you state in one telegram: "Statt> officers gave notice own account entirely" ? You sent over 40 wires asking them to come out. Captain Watson: That was in reply to a wire. I don't remember what the wire was. Mr. O.stler: Very well, we will leave it to tho Court! Mr. O.stler, continuing: You wired: "Unless Mana remains Pa tea matters will be_ mndo exceedingly difficult for us." "Us" meant, "(he guild," of course. Captain Watson: Yes. In the face of this, can you sav that all tlie officers left of their own volition? —"1 think most of them did." Were the Officers Influenced? Mr. Ostler: But can you say, after those wires, that they came out of their own volition? Captain Watson: I think they would have come out in any ca.'-e. Mr. Ostler repented the question, and Captaiji Watson' replied: From what I can gather, tliev had decided to come out before 1 saw them, and I don't think, therefore, that I influenced them at nil. Io Mr. Herdman: Any discussions held at the club room during the trouble were by informal gatherings, and not by meetings of the executive. .Tohn A. Hayivard, pilot at Wellington, vice-proidentof the guild, and a'member of the executive, stated, positively, that he did not know of any union meeting —executive, Management Com mi (too or seneral-at which it had been decided that the guild should incite the men to come ashore. \or was he aware that Captain Watson had'received anv authority to induce the officers to so act ] To Mr. Ostler: He admitted that he did not know, until he read tho report of the present proceedings in the newspapers, that Captain Watson had seut over -10 telegrams to officers at the end of September.

Mr. Ostler: You were present at a meeting of the guild on September 28? That was the. day before Captain Watson sent tho telegrams calling the men out. Was anything said at that meeting about bringing the men out?—" Not in inv presence. Has not Captain Watson considerable latitude as tho executive officer in managing the affairs of the guild ?-"Ycs." Defending Counsel's Address. Counsel then addressed the Court. Air. Herdman submitted that the information must be dismissed on three grounds. All that it was necessary to prove under Section 3 of the Arbitration Amendment Act of 1908 had not ken proved. Section 3'required the plaintiff to prove that the defendants had ceased work with the intention of compelling or inducing the employers to agree to terms of employment.. 'So, if men determined not to work .because they were dissatisfied with conditions they' could not be convicted unless they hail the intention alluded to. In tin's caso some of the men disliked the conditions and had ceased work, and some of them had gone away to Australia. Intention to compel the owners to agree to conditions had not boon proved. Tho Shipping and Seamen Act, Section 75, allowed a seaman (and the term "seaman" included "officer") to leave his ship on reaching a homo port and giving 24 hours' notice. Sub-seotion 3 of Section G of the Act provided that, when a. strike took place, and the majority of the members of the union were at any time parties to it. tho union would bo deemed to have ins'igafcd tho strike. Assuming that there had been a strike, it had not been proved that a majority of the members of the union had been parties to it. The Executive of the union had taken no part in the strike, which was the concern of the 30 or ■!() officers who lmd gone out. Tho reason for the provision in the Act was obvious. Why should a union of. say, 300, have their funds jeopardised by the action of a rebellious few?'

Further, it had not. been proved that there had been an unlawful strike. Subsection i of Section G' denned "unlawful strike" as a strike of workers bound (at the time of the commencement of the strike) by an award. If thero was ,a strike, when did it commence? From the time, he he'd, that the first officer left his employment. They liad evidence that one officer (Mr. Gibson)— probably more—left on September 29, and the award came into force at midnight on October 2. Others bes-ides Mr. Gibson left before October 2. Supposing that Captain Watson, had been taking part in the matter, and that the telegrams were what the plaintiff alleged them to be. these things having happened before October 2 there could bp no unlawful strike. Even if Captain Watson had taken the part which lie was alleged to have taken, there was stiy no evidence showing that Captain Watson had authority from the union to instigate a strike. Prosecuting Counsel's Address, Mr. Ostler contended that it could not, in face of the evidence (the demands, the Conciliation' Council, the Arbitration Court, the award with which they were dissatisfied, and then their going out), be contended that the officers' object in ceasing work was not to compel the owners to concede- their wishes. When did a strike ■commence? The law laid it down so cleajrly that thero could tie m> argument. A strike was the act of discontinues work, not of giving notice to discontinue. Every day on which a man left, that was a strike of that man. That was clear from the Act, where it said that a strike was the act of any number of workers 'in discontinuing work) due to any combine or understanding, expressed or implied, with the intention of compelling employers to concede. Some of the otiic&rs left on October 3, and, therefore, ot the commencement of tht! strike of those officers, it was an unlawful strike. Mr. Herdman's contention about it being necessary to show that a majority, of the union struck was an entire misconception of the statute. AH that the section meant was that if a majority struck it was not necessary to prove that the strike was instigated by the union, because the union was deemed by law to havft struck. The only thing was that as (here was not a majority ho had to go further, and prove that the union instigated a strike. ; Captain Watson had been the union's trusted officer for six or seven years, had conducted all their business, represented them before the industrial tribunals, etc., and therefore his .lets bound tho union. The action of the guild, or the secretary in its behalf, was extremely overbearing and dictatorial in the matter. The various of coming to an agreement had been gone through, they had got an award from the Court, and then the owners had been informed by telephone that if they did not agree to a conference the men would go out. The owners had then asked for time to communicate with their members, but that had not been granted. Mt. Herdmar. disputed the correctness of Mr. Ostler's contention regarding a striko by one man. One man, Mr. Herdman said, could not "combine, agree, and come to a common understanding." Dr. M'Arthur stated that he would deliver his decision an January 31.