MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 22 July 1931, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CHARGE AGAINST UNION > i tllSitiloUt'U 1 .

ivi M-. GREYMOUTHV JUly 22 Under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, 1913, Frederick George' Davies, as Inspector of Awards, proceeded against the Grey. Valley Miners’; Union, with W. Purdy, as secretary, uapied, as ; the defendant,,g.t (l the, Greymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday. before Mr \) r ... Meld ruin, S.M. ■ • The plaintiff claimed to recover fro mbefejidahfc Union'the sum of £SOO a.s a penalty for an alleged offence, (liidef Section ■ls -of "the Labour Dis-; pules- TfiveStigafciafts Act; 1913. Thh, particulars of- the alleged offence, ’as Set but, were that r the Grey Valley Goal Mineirk’' Union, being a society of workers' within the application of the La hour Disputes' .Investigation Act 1913, did, on oi; about June .17, 1931, instigate an unlawful strike of coal miners at the Brunner Collieries Ltd’s mine at Wallseigl.

Mr T. F. Brosnan represented the Union and Mr F. G. Davies represent-ed-the Labour Department. The Magistrate said that the question appeared to be whether the Union instigated an unlawful strike. There was no doubt the miners had come out. There was no evidence as to what resolutions were passed at a meeting ■in the bathhouse but in -any case the members of such meeting were not be-ing-prosecuted. ’lt was the Miners’ oUnion, as an official body, that was bheliig 'prosecuted; There was no" evi- ■ dence that thie'Union convened a meeting and no evidence of any other meeting held after May 9th, -at which ai resolution was passed requesting the Company’nbt'tb'employ 'Walker as the; Company’s, .surveyor. They-had no Executive-duty to- instigate : a strike. The case cited by .Mr. Davies, was different. . There was no evidence in the present ease that the Union did hold a meeting. There was only a suspicion of its having done so. There was no evidence dfrectly showing that the men were acting under instructions, or had power to strike. The case against the Union had failed. Individual members of the meeting at the bathhouse had been responsible for | inciting a strike and deciding not to work, but the Union did not appear to have"authorised a strike, or to have threatened, to. do so,, or., anything else. Tt was a criminal offence, and the case had to he proved beyond all reasonable dotibt. The case against;., the Tin ion won Id K«'dismissed