BAKERS' STRIKE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 209, 25 August 1908, Page 2

BAKERS' STRIKE.

CHAltUii AUAIiNST AiM AOITAIUii. UUvJiKiNjiiJiiNX TAIvJiS ACTION. ! By Teiogra-pli—l'ress Association. Wellington, last Kiglit. Andrew Collins, secretary of the Wellington linkers' lndusljial Union of \\ uiivi'is, came ljul'ore the Arbitration Court to-day on a charge of aiding and abetting tlie 'bakers' strike contrary to the iorni of the industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 11)05. .Mr. D. il. Finlay represented Mr. Le Cren, of the labor Department, and Air. Wilford appeared for the respondent.

In giving evidence a.s a witness for tlie prosecution, respondent said that he was secretary of the union while the two resolutions of 23r<l and 20th June (having regard to a strike) were passed. The strike was decided upon by 42 votes to 25, and there wj»re four informal votes. A second ballot was taken because some of tlie men were dissatislied, and at this ballot 4(1 voted for striking and 13 against it, and one informal vote was given. As soon as the strike was declared, he said: "These books are closed," and they had been closed ever since. He knew pickets were sent out, but lie was not on any of them, lie admitted having supplied the information contained in various newspaper interviews. When the strike had been decided upon he told the men that lie would stand by them. "What sort

of a man would 1 have been had i not done so V" Hut lie warned them, out of his experience of strikes in, the past, that the moment they interfered with free laborers in any way except' moral suasion they would lose the public support, and that if thdy went beyond moral suasion he would leave them jt that moment. Air. Wilford admitted that respondent had stood by and assisted the men from 31st June. Collins, further examined, denied having stated that the strikers intended to starve the community. Forty men went out on srike. There were about eleven luft, the rest having gone back to work, lie regarded himself as neither a worker in the union nor an employer. Ernest Lo Cren, Inspector of Awards, cross-examined by Air. Wilford, said ne

lnul obtained a document from Collin# which admitted that lie hail uided and abetted the men after they went on strike, lie understood from the en quiries he had made that Collins had done his best to persuade the men not to go on strike. Addressing the Court for respondent, Jlr. Wilford first enquired what a strike was. The act of striking, he contended, was the net of combining with other workers to leave .work simultaneously so an to put pressure 011 the employer to enforce demands by stopping or endeavoring to stop his operations. The act of striking was complete when the workers had actually left work ill pursuance of this preconceived action. He contended that the worker could not be deemed to strike from moment to moment or continuously. When a worker abandoned his work the relationship of master and servant was at once at au end. When the men struck the contract was ended, and the master had only a claim for damages. The verb "strike 1was used for the original act of leaving work, ajul that only. Any disturbance of business created by the going out was not the strike, but the consequence oi .it. If a strike were continuous, when did it end? Was there a bakers' strike

now? Employers said there was 110 strike, because they were not incommoded. The employees considered they were still on strike. If going back to work was the end of a strike the men would be unable to put an end to their own offence without the employers consenting by taking them back. Therefore the workers would be unable to terminate their legal offence if they desired to do so, which was an absurdity. Mr. Wilford therefore submitted that the respondent was not liable, as the words in the Statute referred to the definite act of leaving work. Taking part ia a strike meant taking an active part in the combination of men to leave work. Collins' admission in writing referred to actions done after the strike, though even he might still suppose the strike was proceeding. Further, the Arbitration Court liad no power to hear this case against Collins, nor had any

court in the land, for Collins was neither a worker, nor an employer as (lefiiiwl in the interpretation clause of the Aet. He was not cmplo.veil by anybody, aiul he had no one in his employ. Finally, Collins was charged in this case on one summons with "aiding and abetting" and with "creating" a strike. The '•duplicity," to use a term of the Appeal Court, was wrong, and cuunsel' submitted that as part summonses were not issued the charge must fail. Mr. Findlay submitted, in reply to fhe main argument of Mr. Wilford, flint there was a confusion of ideas as to the meaning of "aiding and abetting.'' This was an absolute principal offence created by the statute. The confusion had arisen between the continuation aiul the continuity of the offence. The object of the Act' \pis to prevent any strike or lock-out. The word "strike" must be given its ordinary meaning, not the narrow meaning suggested by the defence. If men went out for a minute, according to the argument for the defence, it would l>e a strike. The whole essence of the strike was to maintain an insurrection of labor. "Aiding and abetting" meant the countenancing of the supporting of a strike, but if the meaning aought to be attached to "strike" iby Mr. Wilford was taken, how could there be anything sucli as "aiding or abetting?" The Legislature wanted to prevent what was the real danger to the community, the continuance of a fstrike. The micro coming out of the i men was a contempt of the award, but I the prolongation was the more serious ofl'ence, and it was against this chiefly that the penalty was directed. He contouted that the construction of section

5 of the Act referring to a strike, that it ''was taking place," must mean that an oircnce was continuous. He also linked that respondent could be brought within the category of "worker." He was employed as a secretary of a union. Counsel asserted that even upon the narrowest definition the strike continued until the day upon which the last man who joined it went out from his employ. It luul been shown that at-least one man left a city employer

and joined the ranks of the strikers. After Air. Collins had admittedly abetted the strikers, he was an aider and abettor from the time the strike was decided upon. The judgment was reserved. The Arbitration Court declined to ad-

ji min the hearing of the charges agaiurt the other mem, although Mr. M ilford pointed out that judgment in the Collins ease would make all the difference m the world so far as seven of them were concerned. The next case taken, was that of John Domenech, who was charged with aiding and abetting Judgment was reserved. 11l the ease of Jesse Harlem, who was | suuiiiuoiied for striking on 2i)tli June, t lie defence was that he had struck on UStli Julie, and so could not be guilty. After some argument the" Court held that it had power to amend the citatiou. Defendant was convicted of committing an offence on cither the 28th or 20th. The remainder of the cases but two »«vcre then disposed of by a plea of guiltv being entered. In the ease of Hume a plea of not guilty was entered. Judgment was reserved. The case of (ieorge Kelpc was similar in fact, judgment"being also reserved.