THE LABOUR LETTER.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1404, 2 April 1912, Page 5

THE LABOUR LETTER.

IMPORTANT CASE AT AUGKLA\ WAS THERK AX U.NLAWFUi STBIKE? (By Tdcßrnph.-Prcss Association.) \ Auckland, April 1, \ A, case of considerable) importance (A waterside workers and stevedores wai called on before Mr. C. C. Keltic, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court. Mr. E, \\. P. C'ohns, hi-pcci.,,,. c f .Awards for tho Department of Labour, appeared as informant. '.Ilie Auckland WaU.rside Work, crs' Union were defendants Mr. Uolin-- informal his Worship that he proceedings were taken under Section (. 01 the Industrial Conciliation and .•übitration Amendment Act, 11)08, which reails as lollov,\s ; — "i'lvery person who incites, instigates, aids, or abets an unlawful strjko oi lockout, or who incites,, instigate?, 'or assists any person to become- a party to ■any such strike, or lockout, is liable if a worker, to a penally not exceeding Jill), and it an industrial union, industrial association, trade union, .employer, or nnv person other than a worker, to a penalty not exceeding .C2OO " s in this can., said Mr. Claims, "the dofondant union wes a nartv to an award which was made by Court'of Arbitratim on October 8, W.I, !llu | which force three day; later, and continued £ (i co ami operation unli) December 31, V.ii i ''''"• -\' i,ri "K '"Hi Co., Lid., of A ckland, were also parties lo this „w ari l Why o, ami fert v. Herbert CadiiCb S (who ■ I'o shareholders in Hie firm) went to tho Aucklaiul waterside workers' waiting loom where lb. engagements of workers aie nmdc, and there they, employed a number ot hands, members of tho iiiuon. la discharge the cargo of (he s.s. Papa' roa. the men started about one o'clock on .November 11, ( 0 discharge the cargo, and everything proceeded satisfactorily' until lour days later when Messrs. Scaring and Co. received a letter from (ho ilelemnn, union demanding payment, of is. (id. per hour as ordinary ovcvlimo and 2s. (id. per hour overtime for discharge ol pebbles contained as part of he cargo of s.s l'anaron. On the '20th of he same month the men engaged in he unloading of Die Panaroa cargo informed Captain Thomas" Pro; sl >r (also member of the firm of Ncarinp and Co., Ud.), ami in charge of unloading operaterms that the unloading of superphosphates was worth Is. Oil. „er hour. Canam Pros-'or replied that ho would consider the question. On the following day ' (Monday .November 21) the men did not start work at 8 a.m., (|, c usual hour. Mr. Sinclair Wliyle tailed up(m , ho soc . rotary Mr. Collett, and inquired why tho men had not •turned („' ;- Collctt replied that as soon as Hie company agreed to pay K fid. per hour the men would start work, but: not before. Alter discussion it was decided that the men should go back lo work, and Collctt should <lis> " diss 1.1,e_ matter with Whytc, on tho understanding that the latter should call upon the manager of the .New Zealand snipping Company, with the view nf --e-'" - in.!,' whether llicy would allow Mo-sis. -N'eanng and Co., Ltd., (h c extra ,'M. to pay lor the unloading of superphosphates ami pebbles from the s.s. Paparoa. wnyte saw the manager of the Xew Zetland hhippiiur Co., and subsequently lu . iornuid Collctt that the company would no. lncreas? the contract price, and that, he would not give the men the .extra price '" asked. _ On .November 21 the union held' a special meeting, when it was resolved I hat lor obnoxious cargoes, such as basic slag, superphosphates, sulphur, guano, and bonedust, the rale of pay. must be 3s. Gd. per hour (ordinary lime), and 2s. Gd. overtime from (his dale." On Aoveinbor 22 the men did not slait work at (ho usur.l time, and Messrs. Whilo and Cadiicss went to "P" shed, and saw Mr. Collctt, who told them the men' would start work when the company agreed to pay Is. Gd. and 2s. fid. per hour. Mbyte then said, "Well, if you demand Jl, PI! have to pay it, as ]' can't stick the ship up." Celled said, "Well, bovs, they agree to the 3s. lid. per hour, and' you can now go back to work." Thev did'

lie ease for the defendant union was that the men engaged were required to handle superphosphates,*-basic slag, and pebbles, which formed part: of the cargo ol the steamer Paparoa. In (he ease of superphosphates, it appeared I hat in consequence of tho maritime strike in London, bags containing this form of manure or lertiliser had been lying about Hie docks in Laudon for some lime, and when the cargo arrived in Auckland and was opened out the phosphates were found: to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. I hey spoke to Captain 'Presser (who was in charge of the cargo discharging operations), and, according lo the men's version of the matler, the captain agreed' that the cargo was in bad condition. Ho mined that he would see if he could get what is known as "dirt money" for thein. which meant extra ipavnient for handling of objectionable cargo.' It was admitted on both sides that there was no real contract in regard to waterside workers and their employers, although; the work- was carried cut under the award, nf the Court. The employers claimed' the right to employ any member of tho union aiid to discharge peremptorily any man for misconduct, or for any' valid' reason, but there was no compulsion on either side, for if men chose to stay away after the firs! day's work employers could not compel them to continue work until completion of the job. At the conclusion of (he evidence for the informant, Mr. Way asked that tha case should be dismissed on tho ground that tho information disclosed no offence. There was no contract, and there was no person who was guilty of nltempting to incite an "unlawful strike," and (hcroforo there was no case to answer. Moreover, there had not been any strike at all, nor yet any definite breach of contract. llis Worship decided that a prima. facie ease had been made out, and was inclined to the •qiinion that what had been done amounted to a strike. Kvidoneo was then taken at considerable length in support of the union's position.. H was mentioned by Mr. Woy that the whole amount in 'dispute iii this case was 115s. Alter prolonged argument, his Worship reserved his decision. He said tlicro seemed (■- be two questions for decision: (1) Was there an unlawful strike-'and 0>) whether it had been proved mi evidenco that this industrial union incited, in.stigaicd, aided or abetted a strike or tho 'continuance of a strike.