Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A TECHNICAL STRIKE

i- . » ——_ .■ NOMINAL PENALTY IMPOSED. Before "Mr. W. G. Riddoll, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, the Inspector of Awards (Mr. G. H. Lightfoot) proceeded against the Boilermakers' and Shipbuilders' Union to recover a penalty for. an offence under the Arbitration Act, tho defendant union having, it was alleged, inoited certain workers omployed by J. J. Niven and Co., Ltd., and Ross, , Jbry, and M'TiVhannolj to become parties to an unlawful etrike, tho said workers being at the commencement of the strike bound by. an, award. Mr. O'Regah, who appeared on bohalf of • the defendant union,'said ho was prepared to admit.that'there had been technically a strike within the statutory moaning. He was satisfied, nowever, 'and the Inspeotor of Awards was also satisfied that the breach had been quite unintentional. Thoro was a widespread popular belief that overtime could bo prohibited, but the legal position was that overtime could not be prohibited, even by an award of the.; Court of Arbitration. All that the Arbitration. Court could do was to provide that if overtime were worked a. higher rate, of payment should be made. In tho present case, the union in good faith had endeavoured to induce certain of its mombers to refuse to work overtime. The men who had discontinued work had certainly become guilty of an unlawful strike, and ,it was equally a breach of the Act to incite others ,to do likewise Ho submitted, however, that there was a great difference between a strike which had heen deliberately entered into and one which the participants do not think was a -strike. Though the inspector had claimed a penalty of £200 ho was now quite satisfied that the breach.was unintentional and under the circumstances, counsel submitted that the case would be fully met by tho imposition of a nominal penalty. .. ' .The Inspector of Awards concurred in the statement made by Mr. O'Began, and the Magistrate imposed a penalty I of £2. .■■ ■ ' .

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19170328.2.52

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3039, 28 March 1917, Page 7

Word count
Tapeke kupu
324

A TECHNICAL STRIKE Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3039, 28 March 1917, Page 7

A TECHNICAL STRIKE Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3039, 28 March 1917, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert