TRAM STRIKE SEQUEL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3031, 30 October 1908, Page 4

TRAM STRIKE SEQUEL.

EMPLOYEE'S UNION FINED % { £6O. By Telegraph—Press Association. AUCKLAND, October 29. The Arbitration Court gave decisions this morning in several cases arising out of the late tramway strike. In a case against the Tramway Union, Mr Justice Sim said that he had taken into consideration the arguments advanced by Mr Rosser, and recognised that the numerous dismissals of workers probably had the effect of creating the impression that the company was actuated by hostility against the Union, but dismissals which took place were within the comDany's rights. It was as right for an employer to get rid of an employee as for an employee to get rid of an employer. Ihe dismissals did nut contsitute a breach of award. Probably the Union did the only thing it could to get a complete vindication of its grievances. That £ appeared the most that could be said ■ for On the other hand, he took into ansideration that the strike created a considerable disturbance and caused much inconvenience and loss to business people. It was absurd to say there was any real excuse for the strike. The court must impose a substantial penalty, and would order the union to pay £6O to the appellant as a penalty for the strike. Regarding the case against the company for dismissing Conductor Herdson, the court was clear Herdson was informed he could get a week's pay in lieu of notice on returning his i uniform. A week's pay should have actually been handed to him, but the breach was trifling and did not call for a penalty. In the case against the company . for not providing a week's work for men en the regular staff during Christmas week, Mr Justice Sim said the company employed a certain number of motormen and *—-V s conductors for a special service. The * day proved wet, tli3 special service was suspended, and the men were only paid for the time actually worked. He thought the award imposed on the company to find work for the men on the regular list, otherwise thecompany could give a regular man a week's notice and not provide him with work during that time. The cnurt held that the company was not bound to find work for the men on Christmas Day, as they were not bound to provide work on Sunday, and the men were only entitled for the actual time worked on those dayf>