UNLAWFUL STRIKE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2964, 19 November 1925, Page 3

UNLAWFUL STRIKE.

SEAMEN’S UNION PINED £IOO.

Auckland. November 17. A penalty of £IOO was to-day imposed by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., on the Federated Seamen’s Union of New Zealand in a prosecution arising out of the dispute regarding the duties of donkeymen on coastal ships. C. B. Fittes (president of the union) and W. T. Young (secretary) were each fined £5. After reviewing the evidence, Mr. Cutten said that the position was fairly stated by Mr. Kidd (senior surveyor of ships and senior inspector of machinery, Auckland), who was called as a witness for the defence. He said the chief engineer, ' being in charge, was until the issue of the circular and should be in a position to order the men to do anything that they could be. Not only should the men do anything they might me be ordered while under the direct ‘control of the engineer, but in his opinion the Shipping Act contemplated periods during which no certified m!an would be on duty in the engine room, although' the custom was for the engineer to be handy to be called, because ships which might have a run of 300 miles, which would take nearly two days, might have only one engineer on the staff, and it would be impossible with this scale to have a certified man in the engine room all the time, “The action taken by the union in ordering union members not to do this work is intended, according to the circular, to save danger to life and limb,” continued the Magistrate, “but as defendant Fittes says the view that present methods are dangerous is not built upon the experience of any particular happening,- which is another way of saying that there is no evidence to support the view. The action taken is not, so far as is shown by evidence, based upon any complaint from the men about having to do work they have been doing. It is opposed to the provisions of the Shipping Act. It involves a breach of the existing award, and it has caused extreme inconvenience, particularly in the case of smaller vessels. The object the union has "in view is not obvious. It certainly is not the ad-» vaneement of the ordinary industrial interests of the men. Young’s statement, made not in his evidence, but in the course of his address,

that'* wealthy shipping companies are employing fireman to do work which should be done, by certificated men, thus swelling th(eir already large profits, may show what is in his mind. Whatever the union has in view, this point is worthy of note by the men, namely, that although in this case the action of the union seriously effects only smaller vessels it is a most unfortunate thing that disturbing influences seem more often jo affect shipping upon which the greatness of the British Empire is built than any other industry. “Although there does not appear from the evidence to be any reasonable ground f°r the action taken by the union, there still remains the question whether what it did amounts to inciting or instigating a strike. The -defendant union is registered under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and is responsible for the acts of its executive. It is both proved and admitted that the executive issued circulars to union members requiring them thereafter to desist from operating valves' or any other kind of machinery in the engine-room and stokehold of a ship, and to refuse to obey any orders given them to do so. That such work was being done by certain workers is proved. Were it not so, the issue of the circular would have been objectless. The response to the circular by the workers to whom it was addressed, was immediate. The men from the time of its receipt refused to do this work,, and have not done it since. This has caused delay and incqnvenience to the vessels concerned. This, it seems to me, is an unlawful strike within the meaning of the Act. They acted, it must be inferred, from the whole circumstances; in fact, the circular says so in so many words, with the object intention of compelling the employers to make arrangements which would relieve the workers of a class of work they refused to perform. Finally, this state of affairs was instigated by defendant union. Judgement must therefore go against the union on the first ground of action. The other grounds need not be considered. •. “The next question is whether judgment on the same ground ...should go against defendants Fittes and Young. They acted as executive officers of the union, and they carried out its instructions and took the actual steps which instigated the unlawful strike. Had the union decided to commit an ordinary crime, its officers, who actually committed the crime, could not successfully put forward as a defence that they had committed it as such officers, and were merely carrying out their instructions. Nor do I think the defence can avail them here. They did an unlawful act, and no form of agency which will permit the doing of unlawful acts and leave the principal alone liable for the consequence can be recognised.” Judgment was given against the union for a penalty of £IOO, Court costs, witnesses’ expenses, and solicitor’s fee. Judgment was given against Fittes and Young for a. penalty of £5 each, Court costs and solicitor’s fee. Security for appeal W as fixed at £2O with judgment and costs in major decision and £7 with judgment and costs in the two others, , . ... .. .... - • •