FLAXMILL DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1777, 17 January 1918, Page 2

FLAXMILL DISPUTE.

At the Magistrate’s Court, Palmerston North, on Tuesday, Mr W. G. K. Kenrick, S.M., gave his reserved judgment in the cases arising out of the Miranni (laxmill dispute, on September 7th last. The cases were hoax’d in the Magistrate’s Court-on November 22nd, and ,

December (Jib, when J. H. Torbit, Inspector of Factories, proceeded against B. Moss, Lionel Bookman, D. B. Carmichael, John Malneek, W. Wainiarama, Jas. McPherson, Kobt. Buckman, Sydney Norden, F. S. A. Karstern, John McAnergny, W. T. Gag, J. 11. Jensen, Roht. Malneek, James McCluy, Joseph Breen, and P. Ilsen, claiming a penalty for an offence under Section 5 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The offence was an alleged breach of the Manawatu District Flaxmill Employees’ Award in (hat they did, on or about. September Till, become a parly to a strike. Air Cooper appeared for defendants, ami fhe charges were all heard

logcilicr. Tiie decision is as follows: — This is a claim to recover from each of .the above-named defendants the sum of £lO, as a penalty for an offence under Section 5 of ‘‘The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1008,” the particulars of the offence being that the defendants, being workers within the moaning of the above-mentioned Ad, and when hound by an award, to wit, the Manawatu District Flaxmills Employers’ Award, dated the 2(ith day of August, 1015, did on or about the 7th day of September, 1017, become a party to a strike. The point of laW raised by Mr Cooper I have already decided in the case of Torbit v. King, namely, that where men are not bound to give nolice under an award, there can lie no strike if they all stop work, 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 fhe intention of compelling or inducing (he employers lo agree to an increase of their wages. The charge against the following defendants must he dismissed, the evidence proving they were not party to the strike, namely, Roht. Buckman; ho continued to work up to 1 p.m., and was prepared to continue work hut could not do so if the others did not: return to work. The same remarks apply to I' 1 . Karston, who was working to 1. p.m., mid was not at the meeting. In regard to J. Preen, there is certainly some doubt; he was working in (he morning, and did not return in the afternoon, but was suffering from an injured hand. I have decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, and dismi(s>/his case also. In Olsen’s case it is proved he had given notice previously that lie was leaving, and it will therefore he dismissed. It is contended the cases against J. and R. Malneek should also ho dismissed, as they spoke very little English, and would not properly understand what was going on, 1 do not think their cases should be dismissed: they could have empiircd of the manager or I nrned up to work that day, the 7th of September, at 1 p.m., and again on the Slh, when (he whistle blew. In regard to (lie other above-mimed defendants, I cannot accept their contention that they .wore, dismissed; the evidence of McPherson ami Jensen is clear and conclusive that a show of bauds was taken at the meeting as to whether they would go back to work or not.’ McPherson says he does not know what the result was. Jensen says King counted I lie hands, and it; was not in favour of going hack to work. The fact flint it is not proved that every man was at: the mooting does not; in itself prove (hey did not strike; it is proved they did not go hack to work on the afternoon of the 7th September, noi' did they present themselves on I lie and no enquiry was made by them from (he manager why work was not resumed. 1 think the evidence shows (hat (hey knew the result of the men’s meeting. There could be no misunderstanding, as suggested, that the men thought liiey were given the right to conI bine their meeting after 1 p.m., for it is proved that at: the meeting it was decided not to return to work, and this was about Lp.m. or soon alter, and they did mil, return. It; is contended the men had a, just grievance in that they were paying 22s (id instead of 17s (id as provided by the Award for their board; ting question is not the question at' issue with the employees. The question was whether they should get an increase of wage when they were getting above the minimum fixed by the Award, and they decided to stop work because an increase was refused, and (hey stopped immediately without waiting to consult their secretary. If the men were charged 22s (id, when the Award says 17s (id, was to be the charge, they undoubtedly had a grievance, but there was a proper remedy, provided —certainly not to strike. Fur(her, the Award would have expired in a lew days, when the whole mutter of. wage and board would have been settled. It is to be regretted that the men allowed themselves to be led by one of their mates to do. what is wrong. King was the prime mover in the matter, and pressed it to a head in such haste that the men gave themselves no time to seriously consider what they were doing, or to consult their secretary. King, during the conducting of .his case, showed he considered all men wrong and against him except himself. AVlien ho discovered a witness in Court lie claimed it was collusion, but when lie found one of hk witnesses in Court also, it w f as not collusion. These men do mud^

harm, and it; is to be hoped in future the men will not allow one of their number to order them as to what they are to do, but rather put any grievance before their secretary to deal with in a proper manner. He is appointed by them for that purpose amongst other things. I will lake into consideration the fact that the men who had been working on the best of terms with their employers for solne years were drawn into a strike by King’s hasty actions, before they really realised what they had done, and give judgment for £1 against each of the defendants above-named except Robt. Buckman, F. Kars ten, J. Breen and P. Olsen, whose cases I have dismissed.

In the cases against S. D. McPherson, Knut Olsen and D. Griffiths, pole pushers, the following decision was given;—The above defendants arc pole, pushers, and their position is somewhat different from the mill hands’ eases I have just disposed of. Griffiths worked til! 1 p.m., and left soon after, and went to Wellington lo see his brother, who was on final leave. He says if the stripper had started he would have worked. Knut Olsen Was ready lo work at .1 p.m., and remained till 3 p.m., and when he left the men had not returned. He did not attend the meeting. S. D. McPherson remained until 2 p.m,, and left, there being no work done by the others. There is nothing in the evidence to satisfy me these defendants stopped work in consequence of the refusal to increase the wage. They could not work if the others did not, and they remained after 1 p.m. at their posts. These three cases arc dismissed.