STRIKE CASES DISMISSED.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1783, 31 January 1918, Page 3

STRIKE CASES DISMISSED.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION,

Mr W. G. Kenrick, S.M., yesterday gave his reserved decision, at Palmerston North, in the cases connected with the recent Jlaxmill dispute, heard on January 24th, when J. H. Torbit, Inspector of Factories, proceeded against Y. M. Pope, J. Ingram, A, Blair, T. H. Gibson, A. Doidge, and A. Burke (all paddockers), and C. C. Franks, C. E. Johns, H. E, Perkins, M. Carkeck, J. McLean and George Mercer (.all scutchers). .The following is His Worship’s decision:—

I am opinion the paddockers who are proved to he contractors working at a rate per ton, and who employed men and could work when they thought fit, do not come under the award, and therefore cannot be charged with being parties to a strike. If they break their contract they may, of course, render themselves liable to an action for damages for such breach, and it is therefore wise for them, ivliatever trouble there may be for the men under the award, to remember this and carry out their contract. Re Manawatu Flaxmillers’ Award 12, Gaz, L.R. 102. I think it, fair to remark that had these paddockers come under the that the evidence proves Jas. Ingram was willing and had offered to work; that A. Blair was away from work on the 71 h September owing lo a bad left, and therefore could not be guilty in any case, and the evidence against the other paddockers proves they had no grievance, and were not affected one way or the other, by the refusal to give the mill hands an increase, and there was not sufficient evidence to prove that they stopped work to assist the mill hands; in fact, it is proved they continued working until after 4 p.m. upon that day.

In regard to the scutchers: McLean and Mercer arc proved to have worked all the afternoon, and were temporary hands, who, when the mill hands stopped, were offered work under different renditions to what (hey were then working under, which they declined. There is no evidence whatsoever against them of being parties to a strike. The evidence in regard to the other scutchers proves (hey had no grievance, that they wore not aware of what the trouble was with the mil! hands, and, as the manager says, (hey said they “were going to see and put sense into them.” The manager further says Cranks said they did not want to stop work. These men had actually commenced work again at 1 p.m., and continued for some 15 minutes. I am satisfied there was no agreement or understanding on (he part of the scutchers to compel the employers to increase the wages of the mill hands. I therefore hold that all the cases against the paddockers and scutchers have failed for (lie reasons abpve given. As the decision is an important one, it is understood that there is a possibility of an appeal being lodged,