ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3023, 9 March 1917, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

RECENT INCIDENT ON THE MAORI

DEFINITION OP A STRIKE

Another case of some importance, in that it involved a definition of what really constituted a strike .was an%appeal from a decision of Mr. W. G.} Riddell, S.M., who imposed a fine of £2 with costs on a fireman named D. Ross, of tho s.s. Maori, in connection with some troublo on that vessel. The action was brought by the Inspector of Awards under Section 5 of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it being claimed that Ross, by_ tlio way in which he left the ship, had : committed a breach of the seamen's and firemen's agreement. Shortly before May IS, 1916, on which date the caso was hoard in the Magistrate's Court, a man named i Lodder, on tho s.s. Maori, was told off to clean out tho firenien\s quarters, and on failing to obey tho order was dismissed. Then nine firemen and five trimmers demanded from tho second engineer tho name of the man who had informed on Lodder. Tho request was refused, and the men then said they would "stick up" or leave the ship. A similar request made to the chief engineer was' also refused, and tho men then gave uotico to leavo the ship, and did leave the vessel tho following day

Tho Magistrate, in his finding, held that the men were acting in concert, and so their action was illegal. Defendant had stated that irrespective of tho trouble over Lodder, he had decided to leave the ship, but tho Magistrate held he was acting with tho other men, and concurred in their action. The Magistrate also held that as _ they had determined to leavo the ship in a body, prior to their giving notice, the formal giving of such notice was not a matter of moment.

Mr. P. J. O'Regan, who appeared for the appellant, contended that there had been no breach of contract of service, but, a termination of contract of service. Ho further contended that tho men had a statutory right to act as they did. _ Ho pointed out that it would be quite legal for one man to leave after having given notice, and maintained it would be equally so in the case of two' or more men. The men exercised their undoubted right to leave after having given tho requisite notice. Their motives for doing so were irrelevant. Mr. V. R. Meredith, who appeared for the respondent, contended that the statute was clear. The men acted in concert in an attempt to enforce a demand, and in so doing brought themselves under the penal clauses of the agreement. Tho essence of tho offence was combination. / His Honour asked: If a body of men on a ship found that it was unseaworthy, and having given notice declined to proceed to sea in her and left, would that be a strike? Mr.- Meredith maintained that a strict reading of tho Act would make it a strike. Mr. O'Regan mentioned tho fact that before the Huntly mine explosion it was common talk amongst the miners that the mine was unsafe, and many of the miners left.. Could their action be deemed a strike? Counsel agreed that combination was tho essenco of the offence, and pointed out that all thomen had to do to make any action decided on legal was to have given notice at snort intervals and not all together, His Honour: Tho trouble appears to be that the men gave notice in a body, after an attempt to onforco a demand. As tho point raised was an important one, tho Court reserved its decision, A Question of Ambiguity. Tho Arbitration Court resumed its sitting yesterday, and hoard tho case brought by tho Inspector of Awards against H. J. Archer, draper, Cuba Street, an appeal from the decision of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer presided, and with Tiim on the Bench were Mr. Win. Scott, employers' representative, and Mr. J. A. M'Oullough, representing the workers. Mr. G. H. Lightfoot (Inspector of Awards) appeared in person, and Mr. C. H. Treadwell represented Archer. In tho Court below tho Inspector sought to Tecover a penalty of £10 from the defendant for having, during tho week ended October 28, 1916, employed four apprentices or improvers, an excess of three beyond the proportion allowed by the Wellington soft goods trade employees' award. The point involved _ was tho definition of the term "assistant," the Magistrate holding, owing to the conflict of tho term in two clauses, that t'fiere was an ambiguity, so great that he could only give judgment for the defendant. After hearing argument on the point the Court decided that there was no such ambiguity as hold by the Magistrate, and the appeal was allowed. Tho case was referred back to the Magistrate to _ deal with on the facts, it being pointed out that the word "assistant" in Clauso 10 of the award should bo read as defined in the definition clause. Claim for Compensation.

Alfred Eskey, a carpenter, claimed compensation from Hansford, Mills, and Hardie, contractors, in respect of an _ accident at Parliament Buildings, which occurred on April 18 last, while employed by defendants. Compensation from that date until December 6 at _ tho rate of £1 per week has been paid, and the claim was for payment from the last date to the present. Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. H. Treadwcll for defendants. After hearing evidence the Court awarded plaintiff the arrears to date, and half-rate for another six months, £21 9s. on eacF account, total £42 18*., solicitors' fees £5 55., and witnesses' expenses and costs.