HEAVY FINE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1352, 1 February 1912, Page 6

HEAVY FINE.

FOR INSTIGATING A STRIKE. £100 PENALTY. THE MERCHANT SERVICE GUILDAND COASTAL OFFICERS. Judgment for 4:100 penalty and costs was given yesterday in the case in which Ernest Lc C'ren, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against the Wellington Merchant Service Guild. The inspector had sought to recover .£2oo'as penalty for an offence under Section 6 of the Industrial Conciliation aud Arbitration Amendment Act, 11)08. At the hearing, before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., Mr. 11. 11. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Department, and Mr. A. L. Ilerdmaii for the guild. In the evidence, called for tho prosecution, it was alleged that, during the months of September and October,. 1911, certain officers became parties to a strike. They were said to have acted at the instigation of the guild. The Section of the Act relating to the case reads:—' ■ Every person who incites, instigates, aids, or abets an unlawful strike, or lock-out, or the continuation of any such strike or lock-out, or who incites, instigates, or assists any person to become a party to any such strike or lock-out, is liable, if a worker, to a penalty not exceeding .£lO, aud, if an industrial union, employer, or any person other than a worker, to'a penalty not exceeding ,£2OO.

What it was Necessary to Prove. In tho course of judgment, tho Magistrate said: "It was necessary to provo that there was a strike, and that tho union incited the strike. The preliminary history put briefly'is; There Had been a demand by the union for better pay and shorter hours for the officers oi tho smallor coastal . steamers. These demands had been refused by the Shipowners' Federation. The union then ci ed tho owners before the Conciliation Council, and, as no agreement was arrived at, the case' was take,, beioro the Arbitration Court "■men made an award on September 18 to como into force on October 2. Members of fho union were dissatisfied'with the award. On September 29-thrco davs but ore the award c.njne into force—Canuiin Watson, sr-crehiry of the union commiinicntcd with Mr. Fuller, shipping manager of T.ovin nhd Co., and a number, til the. Shipowners' Federation, unking lor a. conference- with the. owners and intimating that, if the-, reriuesl were not granted, the conserjuenco would bo serious.

' Officers Left the Ships. "Tho owners' federation then asked for further time, which was not given and on September 30, many of the officers pavo L' 4 hours' notice- of their intention to come out. Officers, continued to give, notice to leave, and did so up to and after October ,T aud 4-after the award was in force, and without completing their articles.

'Counsel for tho defendant asked that the information be dismissed on three grounds, which I shall consider in the order in which they were stated. He first contended that there had been no strike, inasmuch as it had not been proved that the officers had left their work with intent to compel the shipowners to comply with the demands made. Tho reply to this is that the union made certain demands on the shipowners, which were not conceded. These- demands were brought before the Conciliation Council without any agreement being come to. Nest the aid of the Arbitration Court was invoked, and an award was made on SeptcmtuT IS. Tlie odim-rs were clUuilUfii-ri with nu-.-ml, anil began to give notice to their employers, and left their ships before their articles had (.■eon completed. In my opinion this discontinuance of their eniploynivnt »a- due to a common undi rsliinding or agreement (if not expressed, at least implied) tuad" or cotoicl into by du) said olli&ers. Bj Uicir action I

tliink .they brought themselves within thn. terms'of Section H, Sub-section 1, of the Act, which defines a strike. When the Fact May Not be Disputed. "\s his second ground for a dismissal, counsel relied on Sub-Section .lot'Section li, which provides that, when a strike hikes place and the majority nf the member« of any industrial iiimm or asso-.'ia-tion nre at any time parties to the strike. Ibe viid union tir associalitm shall lie deemed-to have instigated, (lie strike. Ho contended that it had not'been proved that a. majority of the. members nf the union wen. at. any time party to tlm strike That is so. bull take the niraiiili" of the sub-Section to be that, if a majority of the" members .are parties to Ihc strike, (hen the union shall be deemed in law to have instigated the strike, and shall not. be allowed to dispute the fact. "Couu-el's 'next ground for dismissal was that it had not been proved thai, there hail been an unlawful strike under fho provisions of sub-Swtion I of Section l!. His b-isis for this is that some of the officers left their employment before the award came into force. Some certainly did leave before the award came into force, but several left after it. had come into force. In my opinion those who left before (lie award came into force, withniil completing their articles, were parties to a strike, and those who, without completing their articles loft after the award came into force, were parties to an unlawful strike. Did the Secretary's Acts Implicate Union? "Finally, Mr. Hcrdman. contended that, asMimiiis' the secretary did fend certain telegrams, produced in evidence, his action could not implicate, the union, as the union could only act in accordance with its rules, and there had been uo action of the union to instigate a strike. I am of opinion that, the telegrams prove the secretary's action iu aiding or abetting an unlawful strike, and 1 am further of opinion that his action implicates flic union. He was a trusted executive officer of the union, and, in the due performance of his duties, the union is bound bv his acts."

After quoting an authority on this point, the Magistrate conchid'ed: "In the present case, the secretary, in sending the telegrams, acled in the course of his service and employment, and did that which he believed to be for the interest of the union, and I think that the union must w held responsible. The offence was a serious one, and has caused great pecuniary loss to shipowners. Judgment will be for plaintiff for .£IOO, with costs and witnesses expenses." Security for leave to appeal was fixed at li> guineas, and payment of judgment,