SEQUEL TO THE BAKERS STRIKE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9174, 25 August 1908, Page 5

SEQUEL TO THE BAKERS STRIKE.

CHARGE AGAINST ANDREW COLLINS. JUDGMENT RESERVED. BY TELEGJRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION. WELLINGTON, August 24. Andrew Collins, Secretary of the Wellington Bakers" Industrial Union of Workers, came before the Arbitration Court, to-day, on a charge of aiding and abetting the bakers' strike, contrary to the form of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1905. Mr D. M. Findlay represented Mr Le Cren, "of the Labour Department, and Mr Wilford appeared for the respondent. In giving evidence as a witness for the prosecution respondent said that while he was Secretary of the Union the two resolutions of June 23rd aid 29th (having regard to a strike) were passed. The strike was decided upon by 42 votes to 25, and there were four informal votes. A second ballot was taken because some of the men were dissatisfied, and at this ballot 46 voted for striking, 13 against it, and one informal vote was recorded. As soon- as the strike was declared he said, "These books are closed,'' and they had been closed ever since. He knew uickets were sent out, but he was not on any of them. He admitted having supplied the information contained in vtrious newspaper interviews, information which lie had gathered from the men when the string, had been decided upon. He told the men that be would stand by them. What sort of a man would he have been had he not done so? But he warded.them out of his' ex,perience of strikes in the past that the moment they interfered with free labourers in any way except by moral suasion they would lose public support, and thht if they went beyond moral suasion he would leave them at that moment. Mr Wilford admitted that respondent had stood by and assisted the men from June 30th onwards. Collins, further examined, denied having stated that the strikers intended to starve the/ community. Forty men went out on sirike. There were about eleven left, the rest having gone back to work. He regarded himself as neither a worker in the union or an employer. Ernest Le Cren, Inspector of Awards, cross-examined Ly Mr Wilford, said he had obtained a document from Collins which admitted that he had aided and abetted the men after they went on strike. He understood from enquiries he made that Collins had done his best to persuade the men not to go on strike. Addressing the Court for respondent, Mr Wilford first enquired what a strike was? The act of striking, he contended, was the act of combining with other workers to leave work simultaneously so as to put pressure on the employer to enforce demands by stopping or endeavouring to stop his operations. The act of striking was complete when the workers had actua'ly left work in frmance of this re:onceivtd 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 an end. When men struck the contract was ended, and the master had only a claim for damages. The verb "strike'" was used for the original act of leaving work and that only. Any disturbance of business creat?d by the going out was not the strike, but the consequencs ol" it. If a strike was continuous when did it, end. Was there a bakers' strike? Employers said there was no strike, because they were not incommoded. 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 o,wn offence without the employers" consenting by taking them back. Therefore the workers would be unaDle 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 in a strike meant taking an active part in the combination of men to leave work. Collins'admission in writing referred to actions dor.e after the strike though even he might still suppose the strike was proceeding. Further the Arbitration Court had 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 defined in the interpretation clause of the Act. He was not employed by anybody, and 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. This "duplicity," to use a term of the Appeal Cocrt, was wrong, and counsel submitted that as separate summonses were not issued the charge must fail. Mr Findlay submitted, in reply to the main argument of Mr Wilford, that 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 and the continuity of the offence. The object of the Act was 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 be a strike. The whole essence of the strike was to maintain an insurrection of labour. "Aiding and abetting" meant the countenancing or the supporting of a strike, but if the meaning sought to be attached to "strike" by Mr Wilford was taken, how could there be anythii.g such as aiding or abetting? The Legislature wanted to prevent what was the real danger to the community —the continuance of strikes. The mere coming out of the men was a contempt of the award, but the prolongation was the more serious offence, and it was against this chiefly that the penalty was directed. He contended that the construction of section 5 of the Act, referring to a strike, that it "was talcing place" must mean that the offence was continuous. He also urged that respondent cou'd be brought "'ithin the category of "worker." He was employed as a Secretary of the Union. After Mr Collins had admittedly abetted the strikers he was an aider and

abettor from the time the strike was decided upon. Judgment was reserved.

ENFORCEMENT OF AWARD. CHARGES AGAINST BAKERS. WELLINGTON, August 24. Application for the enforcement of the award of the court in the baking trade was made in the cases of the following bakers alleged to have taken part in the recent strike:— Jesse Haslen, Henry Unsworth, Bert Crock, Frederick Bishop, Frederick Browning, Alfred Winter, Joseph i-larrison, Frederick Fredeno, Bernard Kelly, Thomas Reid, P. Bevis, Thomas Henry Hogg. John Jdsson Coirin, J. Kelly, Peter Crawford, Andrew Ramage, William Coxon, Frederick Myers, George M'Whirter, Alexander Cochrane, John Halford, | Andrew Munro, Bernard M'Leelv, Jack Tangye, Alfred Pielo, William Edward Trimmings, Walter Flatt, Frederick Greenough, Thomas Dillor, Oliver Anderson, John O'Brien, George Meldrum, Jack B. Brown, Walter Cuoper, Frederick William Brewer, Joseph Newman; Thomas Stewart, John Copp, Harry Hicks, George Keppe, George Hume. Mr Wilford appeared for eighteen of the respondents, and also for Andrew Collins, who was salleged ;o have aided and abetted the strike. Mr'Le Cren represented the Labour Department, - and announced that he had the written admissions of nea'ly all the respondents in the cases. The Arbitration Court declined to / adjourn the hearing of tlve charges against the other men, although Mr Wilford pointed out that judgment in Collins' case would m:ke all the difference in the world so far as seven of them were concerned. The next case taken was that of John Domenech, who was chargtd j with aiding and abetting the strike. Mr Findlay remarked that the case would probably turn on whether defendant was a worker or an employer within the meaning of the Act. There could be little doubt thit he was one who proposed or aided the strike before the 29th June. The circumstances were somewhat different to the other case. Defendant had at one time been a working baker, and a member of the Union. He had left consequent of entering into business on his own behalf as a restaurant keeper, but rejoined, on May 30th, 190?. He was then doiig nothing. He was still a member of the Union, but was not working at the trade. Andrew Collins testified that when he enrolled defendant he was satisfied that he was not an employer but a journeyman baker. He said he was desirous of ob taining employmem. He also remained a journeyman biker anxious to obtain employment at'Lec the strike had taken place. \ Mr Fitzgibbor, who appeared for defendant, said the point he relied on was that under section 111 it was clear the only person who could be brought within the provisions was any industrial union, asso--ciation, employer or any worker, whether a member of such union or not. Defendant was not a worker, and he was not an employer. Therefore the Act could not apply. Judgment was reserved. In the case of Jesse Harlem, who was summoned for striking on June 29th, the defence was that he lad struck on June 28th, so could not be guilty. After some argument the Coi rt; held that it had power to amend the citation. Defendant was convicted cf committing an offence on either tue 28th or 29th. The remainder of the cases but two were then disposed of by a plea of guilty being entered. In the case of Hume a plea of not guilty was entered. The defence was that he could not be guilty of striking as he had left his work subsequent to the main strike. The man had been induced to leave his work. There was no evidence that he had struck. Judgment was reserved. The case of George Kelpe was similar in fact, judgment being also reserved.