THE FLAXMILL STRIKE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1762, 8 December 1917, Page 3

THE FLAXMILL STRIKE.

KING FINED. At the Magistrate’s Court, Palmerston North, on Thursday, Mr W, G. K, Kendrick, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the case in which James Henry Torbit, Inspector of Factories, proceeded against Phillip King, bench loader, of the Miranui mill, to recover £lO as a penalty for an offence by the defendant under section 5 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act. The particulars of the offence' were that defendant being a worker within the meaning of the Act, and bound by the award, to wit, the Manawatu District Flaxraill Employees’ Award, dated August 26th, 1915, did, on or about the 7th day of September, 1917, become a party to a strike.

The following is the Avritten judgment given by the Magistrate: — The defendant is a mill hand, there are a number of cases pending of a similar nature against mill hands for whom Mr Cooper appears. Mr Cooper has raised a point of .law in the first of his cases which is part heard, and as it will apply equally to this case, I now give my decision on the point raised. Mr Cooper contends that under the above-men-tioned award the, 1 nten can leave without giving notice, there being no provision in the award for notice to be given by mill hands or employers; therefore, if they do leave without giving notice, there can be no strike in so doing. • The facts proved in the present case are that some of the mill hands, with King, the defendant, saw Alfred Seifert, the general manager of the mill, on August 20th, 1917, and asked for a rise in wages of 2s per day. Seifert said that the matter would be considered. On September 7th Seifert saw the men about noon, and after some discussion on the matter, told the men and King, the defendant, who was spokesman, that the Association had decided that they would not increase the wages. King asked if he would increase the wages by Is per day, and this was refused. King says he then asked Seifert and Webb, the manager, if they would go out of earshot, as they, the men, wanted to discuss the matter. Seifert and Webb both say that was the request made to them, and they moved away. James McCloy says that the meeting was held to see if the men would go back or not. Webb says that just before 1 o’clock he saw the men’s hands put up and almost immediately after they dispersed. When the whistle went none of the men returned to work at 1 o’clock. Nor did King, the spokesman, go to Seifert to say what the result of the meeting was. Some 20 minutes after 1 o’clock Seifert says lie sent the manager to tell the men that if they were not going to work they had better get their cheques. The defendant says Webb only told them to come and get their cheques and did not add, “unless they returned to work.” “The evidence satisfies me,” continues the Magistrate, “that .those words were added to the request to get their cheques. The men dispersed from their meeting; neither King, as spokesman, nor any other man, went near Seifert to inform him of the result of the meeting, although McCloy says it was held to decide whether they would go back to work or not. They were away 20 minutes after the whistle went before the manager gave the message, and they did not return to work until September 19th, when a private arrangement was come to between the parties. It is proved that steam was got up and the whistle sounded on September.Sth, but the mill hands did not turn up to work. “King, the defendant, contends that the men were all dismissed by the fact of their being told to get their cheques. He has entirely failed to prove this, for the men had not returned to work for 20 minutes after the whistle sounded, nor did they tell Seifert during that time the result of the meeting, while McCloy says the meeting was to decide whether they should return to work. “This, I think, proves that a strike had then commended, but there is even stronger proof still in the evidence given by defendant himself, who says, when refused a shilling rise, ‘lf you promise to consider a rise we wjll go bpek fq work/ to which Wc|)b saicj: ‘f can’t, op principle.’ Defendant says: ‘Wes qffpree] to go back on any reasonable offer.’ “Now, to deal with the point raised by Mr Cooper. In my opinion there cannot be a strike where the award makes no provision for notice to be given on either side, if the men stop work without notice, unless and until it is proved that the discontinuance of work took place in pursuance of an agreement, or common understanding, between the men concerned, with the intention of compelling or reducing the employers to agree to an increase of their wages. “Thq evidence, I think, conclusively proves the* men.came to an agreement to sfop work fo force an increase to be given in the wages, and this amounts to a strike under the Act. ‘■The defendant, who was spoken man, and leader in the matter, has acted most hastily, without notice to geifert, whom he asked to go out of earshot whilst they discussed the matter. The men dispersed without defendant informing Seifert of the result; the secretary of the union was communicated with - by direction of the defendant; they did not wait for him, but work was not resumed. - “Defendant does not say what the decision was the men catpe to at the'

meeting, but he says the question was not whether they,should strike, but whether they should consider the matter of the employer’s refusal to give an increase at once or later. The men’s actions show their decision was to decide at once, and that the decision was not to go back to work, otherwise they would have returned. “There appears nothing that can be said in favour of the defendant’s actions. The evidence shows that the men had been working on the best of terms for some time for their employers, and within about 30 minutes of being informed of the refusal to increase the wage.they ceased to work. “The defendant is a worse offender than the men, being the leader, and so hasty in his actions that he did not wait to consult the union’s secretary. But for this haste, the men would have probably come to a different decision.” Judgment was given for the Inspector for £lO and costs £2 19s. THE OTHER CASES. JUDGMENT RESERVED. The other cases were then proceeded with, the defendants being Lionel Buckman, D. B. Carmichael, John Malneek, Wm. Buckman, Sydney Norden, F. S. A. Karsten, John McAnergny, W. T. Oag, J. H. Jensen, Robt. Malneek, James McCloy, E. Moss, Joseph Breen, P. Olsen, S. D. McPherson, Knut Olsen, D. Griffiths, who were all charged with taking part in a strike. Mr Cooper appeared for the whole of the defendants. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Alfred Seifert and R. H. Webb, and for the defence by James McCloy, John Alex. McPherson, - Sydney Warden, Fred. E. A. Karsten, Inquert Jensen, Ole Peter Olsen, David'Griffiths, Knut Olsen and S. D. McPherson. The Magistrate reserved his decision.