WHO DID IT?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1476, 26 June 1912, Page 3

WHO DID IT?

COASTAL SHIPPING STRIKE.

AND THE £100 FINE. WILL THE GUILD HAVE TO PAY? THEIR APPEAL IN COURT. . "The impression which we have at present is that there is nothing to niako Uio union responsible." This remark was made by Mr. Justice Sim, iu the Court of Arbitration, yesterday morning, during Mr. Herdman's address in the appeal of the Merchant Service Guild v. E. A. Lo Creu, Inspector of Awards. His Honour was expressing not only liis oivn opinion, but that of Mr. Win. Scott, employers' representative, and Mr. J. A. M'Cullough, employees' representative, with whom he bad just conferred. Back History of the Case. .During the sittings of the Court of Arbitration last year, the Merchant Service Guild appealed for increases of salary, and better.hours for officers employed on the smaller vessels engaged in the New Zealand coastal trade. When the award of the Court was announced, the guild expressed dissatisfaciiou therewith, and, subsequently (before the award actually cam» into force), many of tho officers came ashore at twenty-four hours' notice, and a number of vessels were laid up. In consequence of this, the Inspector of Awards (Mr. E. J. Lo Cren) proceeded against the guild for instigating an unlawful strike, and claimed a. penalty of £200. The case was heard by Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., who, on January 31, recorded a conviction against the guild,' and imposed a penalty of .£IOO. 'From this decision tho guild appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in law, and that there was no evidence of an unlawful strike, and also no evidence that the guild had instigated such a strike. v Mr. A. L. Herdman appeared for the Merchant Service Guild, and Mr. H. 11. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Inspector of Awards. Mr. Herdman—The Guild Not Liable As A Whole.

Mr. Herdman contended that tho action and general conduct of members of the guild and of the secretary and other officers (as proved by tho plaintiff) did not amount to a strike. Even assuming that a strike did take place then, inasmuch as a majority of tho members of, the union were not parties to the strike, the union could not be deemed to have instigated it. Before a union can bo convicted of instigating a strike, there should be proof that a majority of the members had at some Hmo been parties to it. If, however, there was any evidence of the fact that tho secretary or any officer or member of the guild took pare in the strike, even then plaintiff was not entitled to judgment, becauso such eecrotary, officer, or member, acted without the authority of the guild, exceeded his powers, and acted contrary to the rules. Counsel submitted that a perusal of the evidence would disclose that the guild itself took no part, although it might lie that the secretary had taken an active part. His Honour: He seems to have done so. Mr. Herdman: Yes, but the telegrams that were put in do not implicate the guild. A union to be guilty of an offence must act in accordance with its rules and must hold a meeting. Continuing, counsel pointed out that tlie total membership of the guild was 279, and it would be wrong to attack its funds if the secretary had taken part in instigating a strike, merely on his own volition. ..■■.At this stage his Honour conferred with the other members of the Court, and then said, "The impression which we have at present is that there is nothing to make tho union responsible. AVo will hear Mr. Ostler on the subject." Before resuming bis seat, Mr. Hordman again pointed out that, under tho Act, a union was held liable for a strike if a majority of''its members were involved. Tho guild had over 270 members, but only about 35 of them had ceased work. Mr. Ostler—The Contrary View. Mr. Ostler contended that in face of the telegrams that had been sent by Captain AA T atson, the secretary ol tho guild, it could not be suggested for a moment that he did not instigate a strike. The question was whether the union as a whole was bound by the action of its secretary. Ho submitted that, if tho executive of a corporation, or a majority Of the,members of the executive, had 'knowledge of an act done by one of their officers, and, if they pxpriwsedly or impliedly consented to it, then the union »-as bound by it. His Honour: It depends on the nature of the act. . . Mr. Ostler put forward the opinion that if a corporation appointed officers and mado rules for their guidance, and the officers did something in opposition to the rules, the corporation had to take the risk. If an act done by the secretary of a corporation was authorised by the executive, it was irrelevant whether or not it was' authorised by formal resolution or in compliance with the rules. If an officer of a corporation purporting to act on behalf of the corporation did an act for which the corporation paid, and for the benefit of the corporation, then the onus was en the executive to prove affirmatively that the act done on its behalf was not done by its authority. Counsel was then proceeding to refer to the fact that all the officers of tho executive had not been called to deny authorising tho act. \

His Honour-Why Was the Guild Prosecuted?

His Honour: Why weren't proceedings taken against Captain Watson? Mr. Ostler: Because it was thought that there was sufficient prima-facie evidence to establish a rase against the union. His Honour: The advisers of the Department must have known that it would be much harder to convic!' a corporation. Mr. Ostler: All I ran say is that the advisers of the Depav< nent thought there was sufficient evidence to bind the union. Guild Or Cantain Watson? After a little further discussion, his Honour again pointed out that there was no minute or other evidence to show that Hie act had the authority of the oxecnt'ive. Mr Ostler submitted that there was clear evidence of the fact that members of the union had discussed the matter with Cantain Watson, and that they were under the impression that if the strike was carried out before the award came into operation they would not be liable. It was also quite clear that the officers d<ja=ed work under the impression that t'hev 'were boins called out by the guild. Counsel submitted that all telegrams senf to the officers wero sent by the authority of the executive. ~,,,, . His Honour: les, but Where's the proof Mr.' Ostler nut forward the view that, as so much publicity had been given to Hie matter in the papers, it was unbelievably that tlic "secretary could have, done all (his- busiress privately without' showing letter?, telegrams, and the replies to the C " V £tis Honour agreed, thaf if there was I proof of an informal lectins at which ■ all members of the executive were present. '■ niitl authorised the strike, that would bind the guild. Mr Ostler submitted that even a I broader view should be taken. Tf an act I that could be done by a corporation was i done by one of its officer;; on behalf of the corporation, the oim<= was nn the cornoration to prove that it had not auHi' Honour rointed out that tint would be revering tho usual order. One was siippo=ed to presume innocence. There was strong ground for suspecting thof the Meoutiive'connived at. what wns being done, but there was no proof. Tt was the same n> knowing that a man nail =tolon his lipHil-our's vntch, but the difficulty wns that if had to bo proved. Mr. n.'tler: Then the h\v is a dead letter. You can never make a corporation linWe. rlis,Ho'"-mr said that wns not the fa.-e at all. He indicated where corporations could be nroved liable. I After Air. Ostler's address had conclud--1 fid. Ida Honour anEgunced ftftt.at assent.

the Court did. nt>ji; desire, tp -Hear Mr Herdmau iu Teply. 'She Coiirt would; consider the. ; innttcfi .and, siw* * ate! ' "■ was ncces;aTJ;: : jib hear him. INTERPRETATION ASKEP FOR. ; "SUflUp;|S WOfttv." A' question" subritff&i for tli6 Cbiiit Arbitration jssfriJlny %<>■% what the correct interrirctatib.ii pf a cteiifP !!!:..a." industrial agreement Ijotween. Ms lington Electrical "ffprkers: and thp- City Corporation. . .... . ,*.. . i Tho City Spqilitpr (Mr-, J-'- Q^ I *-?) f ' pcarcrf for the GprpHr.rftioil. ami My. v. S. Smith W the; electrical; SrtntarS, Tho agreement was mk <™ 'October 27, 1911, anil was-in. .Siibstftiiljmj .tor an : agreement of. XpvemijijiS IMS. J- no cJbjifo of which aji. .inltriJrpfrit'iHit ivtis sonpni. , was one relating to suburban. ii'oi'K and read a.s folldws,:.-^ Clause C: ■{<!.}:. "Suburban, wojfc." . means wor.k performed 'by a wof.ker at a distance of b;vei> bvo mile's : frciu the lighting station;, (b) Every':porker suaif be a.t the lighting station at ..the time appointed, . for tho commencement pf/wOTK.- oj.it if previously .required ,to. dp., so he. : shall bo a{. the place whew, hi.s work ■ is to bo pirfcjrnteil ■St the hour afe pointed for the ■comnieiicem.e ; iif;;:and if • the time oceupiMin: so trjayellinsr from. Jiis home to:,.the place \vhji;e.his work ; is to be performed; is liiprb; than, liait an hour he«sliall -felpjiid at the :drdm- ■ ary rate of ij:as»es: t"6r th o . tinie ■«>■ occupied m> mssk® half aiioiipur .If the worker is. h'ofc conveyed, .to thb' placo where .his wbrl: is to :bp . WXformed free , , of; ch|i;i{te...b.e shall .be ■ deemed tq have pxflceefliM 'f torn. his. home to sjic'li place pit fopj;, aijcV ..to) , have travelled at the rate: of. f Pur niiles an hpiir. ; It appcare'd'. iliat in -tiies .original agree> raent thero . had '. bee.u ...1 iharginal: iioto "Suburban :,wpfk ! '., npconipaiiyihg: ili'e. clause, but Ms :bad dropped: iii : tlie print and omitted frjeirn the; ..last" ■agrfe ment and tho-workers nb.w c.laime.d; tliaf section (b) cf; appliefl to: all clauses in ;tlie: ■rtgreeingnf ■aiid. : PP.t to suburban. work....o;ii!.v; $h'i» fblio.w.in.!; o.uesr tions were the.refb.fe s.iibm.ittfed tq the . Court:— .\. - ' . ■ Docs Siifefiaiisc! : fbj :of Gl.a.usa G , ■ plv to suburbaa work, only? Does the. , %ojd .''jlistanca" , niea.n.. e. direct line) :troni. the. ligii.tiii=r.. statioii . or the distinrefto be..Jrayelled. by road' to reach a.gi.vsiii'point? After hearing, kga). argiinieiit,- the Court reserypdy.de.cisioii. ,s:ick lEivE. ■

MUST IT. TllLii jPJiT? An actionSm?t!if).:na.tnre -of .a : te.st" .c'M.e was heard ..by.Vl'tlie.i'.Cplurt. of;;. yesterday wheii.:.;liispectpr : ~ j Q'a'rmbtlj;;', p i;q, ceeded a'gainst ! ;Fgrg«son and' Hi'c'ks, , ■bo.pksellers, stationers,.;: etc';,, .'for :an allesed; breach of tMe:Willinj;t.o'n ■ , i , ypqgraphical . Award. ' ?"■':. .. '■■::..'. .

Mr. H. Hi; ■.Ostler;, of thy Grp.feb LaiiOffice, appeared ; j.f6r the. inspector; an.d : J[r. T. 'for/ Fef> guson and ; Hicks< K ■'."','-! : \ .'"'■. ■ Clause i?;bf£thp\;awari v iirpyid.e3. that employers tp 'pay for holidays"/ -..but■•subject b; .'this ..ii.ti. duction shall' bo : "made':. Jrpni.-. th'e jveekly ,, wage exc6ptsfor; : !fiiiie fc the; through his'f; . tiefanlt..', Jlarch 2 an(l::!^ ! iast|;..;aa ciivplpyipg*-fi. compositor)'J'.wns'Jabk , nt. .fop.'spjp.b '.days through illness.:and'Ah'p..'firm made;;s 'deduction. Thet.JiuestioW .for- -.tlijs 'to.iir.t ;to.. decide wasSwhetlier*/'his : ;piyn', default'' included sicknessi , ?-..:;. , ; ~i. " . ..;.. ,:: ■ ■■.'■.

Mr. WestPh'-.admit.todl that, the■ fnari- -liatl ' been ill, biitV/JierijonlE/jclriimecf :fpf: 'this.: hours flctnnllY/ijvorkccl^iaii.d^niado-jnp^iiO.rtVT; , - plaint abouß-iilnesOfcitKc" fiiifc. -I.t..■ivrs.s'; not the custom': toijiay- for absence e.iiu.S3;i;: by ':". ~'\ '":■*".(..'■ .V.. ...; Mr. Ostlertcoiicjedorli;t.h'o- -.point!- as-' in:! the custom?si'iiti4rs\u)(lvtJiSt,.i,Unl;>s:i!ft(H not conio jwithiirthfr.leaning:, own (lefnul.l'.'Vv, ~ .-.y . ■ ■■'." Decision .ft'is.'/ifrwrryed-. . ■ ■ ' .- ■' A comiKMisat.ipi.'ciaiiiv '.ansinj* put''of,.a' fatal acciclpiity-.'-ilittC. -flccjii-red-?aJ.';a':;£aiy"V-mill in rap.lifivlast ;iToiVMrs;;'-:i\;a ; s : ;heafd. : in Iho Cpu vt.'-oi''' : i\ rbi 1 i\a tioij.. yeslcrilhY; afternoon. ■vri;h.p l .;phjjv':poi.nt;' 'lictnnjTy. >AH~ putcd -of la.mouiifei;loO?' been paid a 'claim- fifwK.S.Si: The partiesjiVoVcs VA'iifoil l[ich;;!|tl;f .In--bourer, of Ms wife, plaintiffs,". ttiid;.'• John':- : ,.Jiiinc* White andSKobertvpickspnV carrying 6n:-v'l}UMiicss«;in.-. Bat-.fi.hii.umlei;: the style of;,Jfhwriwnn'a;-C0.;,-;-flcifcn , (Ttiiif,ivi

Jtr. P. yi'ip'ijreaA- 'aiMicafeff-.-fbr: 'fhf-' Michalicks.V-aijil-:-- I :JfrV.'AV ; sAC &'-ifciifcjiHi.for Jeiisen-\dii(l'*f?ci.; .';'' ..S-ii-'i' '■'■'.

T?laiutiffs.^iii-ere-..^Hf" iiar'ehis :bt ;T,ppMrii; Miclialick/ovhoivrnl ifcnipipjwl.- ■)?y : '.-.-thc--fle---fendnnts, ajidv'TChb' : -'bfi: :J*n.iiafj: 21 last aSi/t'csijlf. 'of: ■jpc.oivcfl , -itt' the ciofouflniVifC riiSillj (iu,..fh.d -sajrih,-to; T'lainlifl's ■a'llc.ijpilj yijth; fd.iiryounger ■■(lijpe.nidiint -for -support nnVt.he'/cnViiinjii ;of -deceased-,-. i»:)i,o----during thefp"i ; pco(liiiV'l- ;nioiil.lis liad.jin.i.ri: them benejirs.::tivf.hcivaliW.f!f ■.Mβ: .T;Jip>therefore clawslfiGSSpbeiii;; tfee- jiJQtj tho valnefipT.:t}(6, ; , sy ji(;fi t,5., .-sVi?.^cr:oiVi"l.

Dcfcndanis %lmiited^ ; lfabiijty for: pay- i meut of but tivr'y ijispp'l cil I; tho amount. -In statin-r their c.n-e.; Mr. | Menteath p'aid'JtlVaP'vsiim' 'pfbeen paid ' li)*--fac'p..;.pf. ,'a!.i : ..-llV4' : '; circumstance?,;. .proVjjiblo- ■.111 at" '. deceased, 'a'l ybiing . ai'a ii nnt.;-20 . yoara"; .-ofi age, could have * paid- anything .-like. the. ; sum of .£96" ill tho year, especially when his brother;;.. .doing t lit!. ii)!W • work, and?, was; Older, pau); only i£.3p,- 'fp'r.' tho «amc perio'cl; ■ , ; ■■ After consultation with .tli.p assessor?, his Honour., said the..Court was quite satisfied tiiat.;'dcce'asod :iVaVI iVta(i J j ■substantial j' contributions, to jttiriH"; ho maintenance .of . his parents. Tlio-evidence as. .t'6'.aiiVqjiiit;, : as in most such cases, was .;nen ursatisfactory, 4it:..all' the circumstances, the Court-thousht the cor.tribu,tion nr.ist hove-iivevOired at lean i£6'pei;'■ month duritk;- the i>.ist year. The I ourt. proposed ithis sum as abasis'to.r ccuipcnsation, ';and \YOi;l(i iudgineiit for the suin .of ■-7 '?■•■■ ePJ^j. ; witnesses' 'and.' 'disb.u.r^e.nieii.LS.,. - The adjPiirKd: uutiV 10 S4ll, on Friday.' '■ ■xi::.-. . . .. . "