Shipping Trouble.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 December 1922, Page 3

Shipping Trouble.

AUCK LAND PROSECUTIONS. FINKS IMPOSED. AUCKLAND, Decemher 20. The hearing of charges laid under the Arbitration Act against forty-nine seamen was concluded before Air Oiltteu S.AL The men were charged that hoing parties to and bound by an award dated. October 10, 1922, they became parties to a strike. ' Air Meredith appeared for the inspector oi awards, ivlio claimed £lO penalty in ouch case and Air Holrnden for defendants. Captain Hammond, manager of the Northern Steamship Company, said the new award provided for a reduction in seamen’s wages. He submitted a list of the company’s vessels which had been laid up and whose crews had been paid off. Cross-examined, he said he was not

’ aware that the Apanui’s captain had given twenty-four hours’ notice to bL cooks and stewards on November 1. i Captains were told by tfir company 1 that the new award© was coming into j force, David Carter, local manager of the | Union Steam Ship Company, gave a j list of vessels whose crews had boon . paid off at Auckland. He said lie would i not dispute the fact that notice was ; given by the Union Company to men :on the Navua and Flora while those •vessels were at sea. j George Henry Lightfoot, inspector of | awards, said the defendants wore hound i by the award. Prior to the operation 1 of the award they were hound by ail | agreement dated February, 1920. The i net result of the new .award was that I the men received less wages. For the defence ATr Holmden moved , for a non-suit on four grounds, fn ] the first place he held that the prose- ’ eiition failed to. prove a strike within section 3 of the Arbitration Act. There was not a tittle of evidence to show : anv intent on the part of the men to 1 compel the employers to agree to fresh : terms of employment. Tn the second ] place the employers acquiesced in the 1 conduct of the defendants and thus ! there could lie no strike. Thirdly the i men were acting within tlieir legal I rights under section 75 of tlio Shipping ! ami Seamen's Act, in giving notice. : Fourthly, if section 3 of the Arbitra--1 tion Act over-ruled section 75 of the Shipping Act, then section 3 was ultravires ns far as it affected seamen. Moreover there wvis the course of conduct. adopted by the captains who asked the men if they would give notice. The law was unequal, for in two cases | the Union C'.impnuy bed given inline Mo the 'men. yet the company was not being prosecuted. Tie claimed that in certain cases the men had not given notice and were therefore not liable j for penalty.. In reply Mr Meredith said there was only one inference for the Court to lake, that there liad been concerted action. Two witnesses were called for the defence, both of whom stated they received notice and that tlcv themselves did not give notice. The Afavistrate said ci uuse! for the defendants had endeavoured to distinguish the charges against one or two of the men on the grounds th.it they did not give notice. He held, however, that that (lid not make any difference. The matter had already been decided by Mr Page at the Wellington Afagistrate’s Court on precisely the same evidence ns that before him. Each of the defendants was con- ■ rioted and fined £2, and costs.