Freezing Work Strike

Hokitika Guardian, 21 July 1922, Page 3

Freezing Work Strike

THE ?vl At, [STB ATE’S JUDGMENT.

[BY TET.FGPAPff —Pfm PRESS ASSOC! VttOV I

CHRISTCHURCH. July 20

“I "find, after careful consideration of the evidence, that the cessation of work at the North Canterbury Freezing Works at Kaiapoi on June 13, did constitute an illegal strike, and that George Col lister and William Chancy were narlies to the said strike.” This was the judgment given by Mr Wyvorn Wilson, S..M, at the Magistrate's Court, this morning in the case in which the Inspector of Awards, Mr Fid dor, claimed, from George Collis--I<u\ freezing works hand, and William ( envoy, slaughtermen, employees of Ike North Canterbury Freezing Works, Kaiapoi. under section (i of the industrial Conciliation Amendment Act. lilt)'', for the sum of £lO as a penalty, for taking part in an unlawful strike.

In the case of Fielder v. Collister. the Magistrate said it was alleged against the defendant, that, being hound by the Canterbury District Freezing Works and Related Trades Employees Award, he became party to a strike. Defendant was a freezing works hand, in the employ of the North Canterbury Shcepfarmors’ Freezing Works, Kstinpoi, which was a party to the award r,f 1921.

It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the cessation of work oil June 13 did not constitute an unlawful strike, and, further, that even if i - did, the defendant did not leave the works with ally intention that would bring him under the penal clause of S'"'tion 0. It was stated the defendant had been intimidated into leaving the works by other men. and it did seem singular that he was the lasi mail to leave off work.

“After careful consideration of the evidence,” said Mr Wilson. “I find tk.it the Executive at Kaiapoi Works did constitute an illegal strike, and I find the reason why the men stopped work was the Coinpanvy had elected to reduce wages, ill accordance with a pronouncement made bv the Arbitration Court for a reduction of the bonus. The Company had given notice that wages were to he reduced, and the men ceased work in order to bring pressure to hear on them so that they would not givo effect to the Court’s pronouncement,.” lie found there had been concerted action oil the part ol the workers. They hold meetings, and as a result of these meetings, the men had gone out on strike, thus causing loss and inconvenience to the employers. Collister was the last man to leave the works, hut there was nothing to justify him in doing so. Ho alleged he had been intimidated, and. if this was so ho should have informed his employers of th” circumstances before going out. He was the last man to leave. Till' question of a penalty was one which required consideration. It was a matter of grave import.:;nee. for there was an industry employing hundreds of men in an essential work, under conditions and rates of pay which had been fixed bv the law of the land. These rales of pav had been reduced, and t 10 men must have realised that any opposition was equivalent to (lying in the lore of rim law. Collister w-s certainl mil an agitator nr a prime mover m but be sliwiM net lr«»ue been swayed bv other men. H was to Ins lit that he had staved out till the lost. hut. still his action deserved ccns.:lnd he would he lined L'2. t,,' the case against Chaney, the Magistrate said the circumstances wei ’ different, for he had gone out with •j.,. main hndv of those stril.iiig. Th v odd he fined £■"■