WATERSIDE UNIONS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2584, 5 October 1915, Page 11

WATERSIDE UNIONS

SEQUEL TO THE 1913 STRIKE THE STRIKE DESTROYED THE AWARD. ' (By TalegraDb—Pxess Association.) Creymouth, October 4. _ A. sequel to the 1913 strike concerning the conflicting interests of the two watersiders' unions at Grey month was the submission of a case to the Arbitration Court sittings here in the middle of September last. The facts of the case from the Magistrate's Court showed that the plaintiff union was registered under the Arbitration Act of 1899, and in 1913 was working under a Court award, the term of which expired at the end of January, 1914. Three months prior to the expiry, the. union struck, in common with other .waterside unions in the Dominion, and continued the strike until December 16, 1913, wlien it was resolved to resume work, notice of such desire being served on the shipping companies. Meanwhile another union was formed, its registration boing accepted by the Registrar on December 18, notwithstanding that the old union pro-tested-by telegram before the date of registration of the new union. The new union continued' to work under practically the same conditions, also the union's award, iiritil February 3, 1914, when an industrial agreement between the new union and-the shipping companies was made three days after the expiry of the date of the old award. '

The questions for the Court were: (a) The plaintiff union having struck, is their award of March, 1913, still valid and binding on the parties? (b) Has a breach of the award been committed by the defendants and the shipping companies? . ■

The Court held that when the members of the old union went out 011 strike tliey destroyed the fundamental; basis of tlie award,'having repudiated their obligations; and surrendered "the rights and privileges provided under the award. By striking, the; old union not only committed a breach of the Act, fol which penalties are provided, individually as well as collectively, but compelled the' employers to find other workers, and entited them to enter into an industrial agreement with the new union, which was lawfully registered, ■, and prepared to do the work. With regard to the plaintiffs' claims that its members were prepared to do the work before the'new union was actually registered, also that its award then again became operative, the Court drew a simile from the way the Germans regarded an international- treaty—as . binding 1 only when it suited their Own purposes. If such, a view of an award'were upheld, it would be absolutely destructive of industrial morality and good faith. 'Tho Court found nothing in the Act to justify the contention that the claims were within tho. union's legal rights, pointing out that the penalty clauses for striking, did not appear to deal with''the.relative rights of the parties when a strike-occurred, but- merely prescribed penalties. The plaintiff union, having deliberately, repudiated the award," and, by striking,- violated the essential object of the Act, has forfeited all right to . invoke the., award for the benefit of its members." The Court was further of opinion that under. Sub-sec-tion 1, Section 90, of the principal Act, providing for ; awards continuing in force until ,a new;; award is-mado; the industrial agreement with the new union of February 3 - ' superseded and put an end to the old union's award of March, 1913..