Curious Position Over Watersiders’ Cases

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 64, 18 March 1944, Page 5

Curious Position Over Watersiders’ Cases

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 17. When the cases of six watersiders charged with being parties to a strike contrary to the Strike and Lockout Emergency Regulations, 1939, were called at the Magistrate’s Court to-day Mr. W. H. Cunningham on behalf of the Inspector of Factories intimated that no evidence would be called on the informations and the cases were dismissed for want of prosecution by Mr. Goulding, S.M. Twenty-four other informations charging the same offence against workers who had not been served were withdrawn. Before tho watersiders * cases were called Mr. Goulding gave reserved judgment in tho cases of three permanent employees of the Harbour Board who failed to work overtime on the Tamahine. He found that all three had committed an offence, but in view of the submissions made by counsel (Mr. \V. E. Leicester) and to allow of possible appeals he decided not to enter convictions until next Friday. Asked if he had anything to say on the question of penalty, Mr. Leicester said he was placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. His clients were not in attendance and facts had come to his notice which ho thought it was his duty as counsel to take cognisance of and refer to the Court, not on the question of penalty but as illustrating his difficulty. During the hearing last Friday certain evidence had been given as to the watersiders not accepting employment. There had been argument as to whether the Court would allow the prosecutions against the three permanent employees of the Harbour Board to proceed in view of tho fact that certain other informations had not been served. “It has come to my notice this morning,” said Mr. Leicester, “that an application is to be made that no waterside workers shall be proceeded against and that being the case I would like the opportunity of conferring with the officials of my clients’ union to see what representations it is my duty as counsel to put to the Court on any auestion of penalty against the Harbour Board employees.” It seemed that any action that had been taken by his clients had been influenced or at least coloured by the attitude of the waterside workers and ho submitted that it was proper that ho should take further instructions. Mr. Cunningham said that hit instructions originally were that in the event of a conviction, being entered a heavy penalty should not be asked for. The cases had been brought to establish the right of employers to order permanent employees back. Since they were not asking for a heavy penalty he could not see that the other cases had any bearing. Mr. Goulding: Is it not a fact that the waterside workers declined to work on a ship and free labour had to be engaged. If that has a bearing on Mr. Leicester’s application I would like to know what is going to happen with the six other cases. Mr. Cunningham intimated that he had the necessary authority not to offer any evidence. Mr. Goulding said if that was the course the Crown was instructed to adopt then the Court could not do other than dismiss the informations. It was not for the Court to make any comment. They were not ordinary prosecutions by the police but were by a Government Department in a matter in which there might be grounds of policy involved and he did not propose to make any comment whatever on the matter. The informations would be dismissed for want of prosecution.