JUDGE SIM HITS OUT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1442, 17 May 1912, Page 7

JUDGE SIM HITS OUT.

DEPARTMENT CRITICISED,

ARE LABOUR PRO6ECUTION6 A SHAM?

STRANGE PROCEEDINGS,

(By Telegraiih.-Proßs Association,!

Auckland, May 16.

Judgment for plaintiff for .£OO nud costs (.£7 75.), with disbursements and witnesses expenses to bo fixed by the Clork of Awards, was given by Judge Sim to-day in the Court of Arbitration in the caso of Ihe Inspector of Awards versus the Auckland Builders' and Contractors' and General Labourers' Union.

Mr. Mays appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A. E. Skelton for tho defendant. the action was to recover .£2OO as a penalty for inciting or aiding a. strike by certain members of (ho union. On October 24 last a number of workers wero employed on drainage works in tho city. They wero working under the provisions of an award made in 1909, and some of the men wero working on piecework by taking sub-contracts. This system had been condemned bv a resolution of the union, passed on October 21, 1010, and endorsed by a meeting of workers on die drainage work on October 22, 11)11. For tho purpose of putting an end to the system of sub-contracting, the secretary of the union (Mr. Arms), with the assistance of the union's organiser (Mr. Corbett), called out most of tho men on tho drainage works on October 2!, and they did not return to work until October 31, after an agreement had been made by tho union with the Drainage Hoard with regard to sub-contracting under a contract to bo let by tho board in the future.

This, said his Honour, was a strike by these workers. It appeared to have been instigated by the secretary without the express authority of the union or of tho committee of management. That committee had, however, ratified and adopted his action shortly afterwards. On October 20 an informal mooting of members of the union discussed tho strike, and appointed pickets. On October 27 a general meeting of members was held in accordanca with a newspaper advertisement, following which- had been published a notice (signed by the secretary) that tho General Labourers' Union had declared a strike. It was clear that, at this meeting, all that had been, done in connection, with the strike was approved. "The union must be taken, therefore," said his Honour, "to have adopted and ratified the acts of the secretary and the committee of management 'hi connection with the strike, end from that date at any rale—whatever the position may have been before—the union was guilty of aiding and abetting tho continuance of an uulawfiil strike.'

The Judge held that the cancellation of tho registration of the union on November 1, 1911, did not render it impossible for the Court to give judgment at that stage against the union for a penalty for the offence committed by it on and after October 27 by aiding and abetting tho continuation of an unlawful strike." : THE WATERSIDERS. "BRAVE SHOW OF ENFORCING LAW." In the Court of Arbitration this morning Judge Sim gave judgment in respect of the action brought by tho Inspector of Awards against the Auckland Waterside Workers' Industrial Union to recover the sum of «£2OO as a penalty for inciting and instigating an unlawful strike by the workers engaged in discharging cargo from the steamer l'aparoa at Aucklund on Match. 22.

Mr. Mays appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Way for defendant. '

On November 18 tho secretary of the defendant union (Mr. Collett) wrote to Messrs. Nearing and Co., stevedores, stating that tho members of the union declined to handle a cargo of pebbles from ■the Paparoa unless they received Is. Gil. per hour for so doing, instead of la. 3d. per hour. The men worked until Tuesday, November 21, when work was suspended on account of rain. They held a meeting on that day, find- resolved not to handle the superphosphates and pebbles unless paid Is. Gd. per hour ordinary time. The men did not return to their work until after the stevedores bad acceded to their demands.

"It is clear," said the Judge, "that tho secretary was aiding and abetting the men, but the question to be determined is whether the union could be held responsible for Collett's action."

His Honour said that his letters on the matter were signed by him as secretary of the union, but Collett's action had not been expressly authorised by tho union at a formal meeting.

Tho Court held that Collc-tt's acts could not be regarded- as part of Jris duties as secretary of tho union, for so long as a union was registered the promotion of strikes could not bo considered as part of the business of the union. Judgment must therefore be for the defendant union.

"It is difficult," his Honour added, "to understand why, in the first instance proceedings 'were, taken against the union, instead of against Collett, and the men who took part in the strike. It is, still snore difficult lo understand why, when tho question of the union's responsibility in tho matter was raised in the Magistrate's Court, proceedings in this court were taken against the union instead of against Cojlett and the men. Tho course adopted rather suggests that the object was to make a. brave show of enforcing the law and at tho same time not to incur much risk of hurting anyone." It is understood that steps are being taken with a view to bringing u similar action against the secretary of the union (Mr. Collett) and members of tho union who struck work while employed on tho Pnparoa,