ALLEGED STRIKE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2153, 22 July 1920, Page 3

ALLEGED STRIKE.

MIRANUI FLAXCUTTERS CHARGED. Forty flaxcutters appeared before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., at.the Magistrate’s. Court, Palmerston North, yesterday morning, charged with a breaclgof section 5 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, in that, being workers within the meaning of the said Act and its amendments, apd that being parties to the Manawatu district llaxwork employees’ award, dated August 20th, 1915, did, on or about February Iltb, 1920, become parties to A strike. The maximum penalty, £lO, was sought by the Inspector of Factories, Mr H. J. Torbitt, in each instance. Mr P. J. O’Regan appeared on behalf of the defendants, and Mr F. H. Cooke conducted the case for the Inspector. The ease arose from the action of the flaxcutters concerned, who were employed at Messrs Seifert’s flaxmill, in ceasing Work because of a disagreement over the price to be paid per ton. Evidence was given by Alfred Seifert to the effect that on February 9th, 1920, the flaxcutters,- who had just cut out on one block, in which they received 8s per ton, started on a new block, the arrangement being that the price for the new block would be considered after the men had formed an estimate of the possibility*'of the flax there; in the meantime the 8s per ton to operate. On February 11th" the men stated that they wanted 10s per ton. Ho inspected the block and decided that he could not agree to that price, and suggested that a conference be arranged between’ representatives of the employers and the Flaxniill Workers’ Union. The proposal was not accepted, and at dinner time the men held a meeting and sent word ’ that they would only accept 10s, so he said that the mill would’have to stop, and the- men ■ ceased Avork. There had been other cases Avhere the mill had been forced to stop for seven or eight days through an agreement regarding the price per ton for a new block not being reached,' but this was the first instance where action had been taken mgainst the men. The" men were under no obligation to give notice to leave provided they tied up in bundles and car - ried out the flax they had cut, according to the terms of their contract. *To the Magistrate: They had gone in to the new block at the rate paid for the previous block, Bs. hut on "The understanding that the price would ho adjusted in the usual way by mutual agreement after the men had seen Avhat the new flax Avas like. J. Taylor, assistant to Mr Seifert at the mill, also gave evidence on similar lines to the previous Avitness. He said that 'Mr Seifert: had suggested a conference, any increase Avhich might result therefrom*to be retrospective. The men had left all their bundles of: flax properly carried out when they ceased work.

B. D. Bell, who had acted a*s delegate for the men, in evidence slated that before a drive had been made into a new block, it was impossible to put a price on it, and in this block, as in others, they had opened it up before trying to have a price lixed. They .had eventually sent word to Mr Seifert that they wanted 10s per ton, and he had replied that lie could not pay that amount. On February 11th, at noon, they held, a meeting, at which it was resolved that the men wanted 10s. This information was conveyed to Mr Seifert, who replied; “I can’t agree to that. There’s no discussion, I will {stop the milk” Similar evidence was given by James Maslem, another employee. He said there had been no mention, nor intention, of a strike at the meeting of the men ou February 11th. They merely said they wanted 10s per ton, and Mr Seifert had suggested a conference, to which they replied that other mills ‘had given higher rates without a conference. Mr Seifert then said there would be no discussion, he would close the mill and go homo.

Mr O’Regan submitted thut the evidence showed that what took place was not a strike within the meaning of the Act, which set forth . a strike was the action of any number of workers in discontinuing their employment, amt wholly, or in part, breaking their contract of service with intent to compel any employer to comply with any demands oj,sueh workers. Regard must be had, he ■usaid, to the customs of the industry and the intention of the parties concerned. In a case where it was the custom for men to have to come to an agreement with their employer from time to time regarding contract prices, it was impossible that such an agreement could always he reached. If, however, his Worship should consider the men had been guilty of striking, he hoped that, in view of the fact that all were hardworking men with families to support, the penalty would be as light us possible. His Worship reserved his decision. - ’