MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2773, 17 May 1916, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

WOOLLEN MILLS STOPPAGE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WORKERS' UNION In consequence of the stoppage of wori at the I'euuie Woollen Mills in Marcl last, the Labour Department yesterda; took proceedings in tho Magistrate's Coitr against tho l'etone (Wellington) Woollei Uills Industrial: Union of Workers for ai Jesedly instigating certain workers t< fJtiike. Tlie proceedings \iero commence under Section G of tho Industrial Con eiliation and Arbitration Amendment Ac . and a penalty of 4200 was claimed the union on the following ground :- That the. defendant union, during th< months of February and March, 1916, di< instigate certain workers, employed b; the Wellington Woollen, Manufacturinj Co., Ltd., to become parties to an unlawful strike at a timo when those worker were bound by an award of a Court o Arbitration, i'lie case was heard befori air. W. G. lUddell, S.M. The case fo'i the Labour Department was in the hand: of Mr. P. S. K. Macasscy, of the Orowi Law Office. Mr. T. M. Wilford aiipeavec for the defence. .

Mr. Macassey, after referring to the clauses of the Act defining a strike and providing a penalty for those taking part in a strike, stated that the award, by which members of the defendant union wero bound, contained a clause, which provided for the termination of employment by the giving of seven days' notice. Counsel went on to outline the facts (already well known) leading up 'to the incidents of March.' On Friday morning, March 10, the workers—something like 200 of them-handed in separate notice of their intention to cease work jifter seven days, and, in pursuance of this notice, work was discontinued at the milt on March 16. It was submitted that, even if notice were given, the action of ..t!ie workers constituted a strike because it had been laid down in the Canterbury slaughtermen's ca'se that if workers, acting in concert at by agreement or by common understanding between themselves, discontinued, their employment, with tho intention of inducing the. employers to comply with the demands ni- the workors, then they were guilty of a strike. It was impossible to prove exactly what was in the minds of the members of the union immediately prior 'to tho cessation of work. Ail that could be proved were certain overt acts. These would be proved in vhe Tegular way, ami, if they did nat constitute a strike, then it was sxtremcly doubtful if a strike could ever be proved under tho statute. Four witnesses were called to prove the facts leading up to the stoppage of work. They were tho ' Inspector of Awards, the secretary of the Employees' Union, the secretary of tho Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company, Ltd., and a former employee bi the company. Mr. Wilford, in opening the case for the 'defence', pointed out that a strike was defined by Section 3 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 190S, and that decisions previous to the passing of that Act carried no authority. It was submitted (hat before a strike could bo proved three elements must all exist. Firstly, a numbei of workers inijst either discontinue their employment, sr break their contract of service, or rcfttso to resume; secondly, nitch action' must bo by combination, agreement, or common understanding; and thirdly, it must be for the purposo of compelling the employers to accede to the demands of the workers. It was clear, said counsel, that there was no breach of contract in the present case. A week's i r.cticc had been given by every employee, and while there was a discontinuance of employment, it was not duo to agreement or combination. An employee, if ho gavo proper notice, was quito within his rights to determine his employment, and. every case must bo treated on its own particular circumstances. The notico being the filial test, it must bo shown that cm-

ployees left their employment. with the intent to compel or induce the employer to.agreo to terms. This-, counsol submitted, was to bo distinguished from a genuine individual feeling that every employee would not work for.the wages previously paid. He contonded that a labourer had a perfect right to sell his labour at whatever price ho thought fit. In the present case, 'the fact that there was genuine dissatisfaction with tho 'rate was good ground for tho employees leaving their employment, and ho ijistiflction dould be made betweeii one and many,, except where

it could lie shown that there was a combination for 'the purpose of .compulsion, and this must be. proved to', the hilt. As

to the responsibility of the union, presuming that there was a strike, there must be express notion by the oxecntivo of the union, or action by the' secretary or other officers acting under the express or implied authority of the executive of the union. No evidence was called for the defence, and when Hie addresses of R>unsel' had concluded, tho Magistrate reserved decision. ' UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. Mr. W."G. Riddell, S.M., gave judg- i ment by default for the ulaintiSs iu the following undefended civil claims:—The Town and Country Supply .Stores v. A..E. Mandy, £2 13s. 3d., costs 10s.; Wellington Traders' Agency and R. D. Hanlon v. J. A. Tucker, 195., costs 55.; the Medallion Art Co. v. Alice Wake,.-JEI 155., costs 75.; P. J. Emburg v. Ilenry "Wright, £3 lfe.. ■Id., costs 55.; Jvnrori Borough Council v. Stanley E., Head, .£2 14s. 7d., costs 10s.; fame v. same, dCS lCs. 5d., costs £1 3s. 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. On a judgment summons, D.. M'Kenzie was ordered 'to pay to Hunt, Cottrell, and Co., Ltd.,- the sum of JE3 19s. 3d. on or before May 30, in default to undergo seven days' imprisonment.' . ■ A RESERVED JUDGMENT. Reserved judgment was delivered intho civil action in which George Haley claimed compensation from the- Canterbury Steamship Co. for injuries said to have been sustained in an accident on the steamer Calm en November 16 last. The facts were hardly in dispute, but on the legal aspect, the Magistrate was of opinion that the' defendant company was entitled' to judgment, which was entered accordingly, with costs .£3 6s.' Mr. I'. J. O'Regan appeared for the plaintiff, , while Mr.' M. Myers 'appeared for .the defendant company. ' POLICE CASES. Police cases were taken before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M. A youthful Russian, named Aarne Vomer Haapanen, was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for. deserting from the sailing vessel-Celtic Glen. He was also ordered to pay 14s, court costs. The Magistrate directed that, in the event of the Celtic Glen sailing before the accused had' served his term of imprisonment, he (accused) should be placed on board. A returned soldier, named John James, Dalton, who had been on remand for a week oh a charge of begging alms,wa9 cautioned and discharged. For drunkenness, Arthur Bnggs was; fined 10s., in default to undergo 48 hours imprisonment. Eour first-offendmg> inebriates were also dealt with-