Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2015, 26 February 1907, Page 1

SLAUGHTERMEN BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT. ACTION BY THIS LABOR DEPARTMENT. 'J'ho Arbitration Gpm-fc sat at Wellington on Friday to hoar charges against the slaughtermen engaged at the Ngahauranga and Potono meat works, who had refused work under the then existing rate per 100 for killing. The citation set out that a breach of section lb of the Arbitration Act had been committed, and application was made for the enforcement of the agreement under the Act between the Wellington Slaughtermen's Union and the meat companies concerned. Mr A. Gray appeared for the Department, of Labor, and Mr Skorrott for the defendants. Mr Cully appeared to represent the Meat Export. Company. It was arranged that only four of the defendants (two from ouch works) should appear, so as not to interfere with the operations of the companies, ft was also agreed that the eases should he heard together. Mr Skorrott objected to tlie jurisdiction of the Court, on two grounds. Me pointed out that section 15 of the Act dealt with ouo class of ease, and section 101 of the same Act with quite another. The last-mentioned section plainly was intended for dealing with applications for enforcements of awards and orders of the Court. Sub-section B .provided that “if any party on whom the award is binding commits arty - breach thereof the "inspector of .-awards may apply, to the Court for the enforcement of the award." There was the limitation. Counsel submitted that this proceeding was exclusively applied to cases where breaches oi awards had taken place. As he understood section 15 of the Act (under which the informations wore laid), it applied to something quite separate and distinct Section 15 was aimed at'the prevention of strikes during tlie prevalence of a valid agreement. It included “any worker, whether a member of tlie union or not." Section 15 created offences, and did not afleet breaches of Idle award. It distinctly set out that workers who were guilty oi the act alleged “shall bo guilty of mi offence, and shall be liable to a-fine. U related to tlie manner in ’which the fine was to be inflicted, and lie asked the Court to particularly note the' wording of statute “in the same manner as if it or he were guilty of a breach of an award. Counsel went on to say that .tlie application in the present case was tor the enforcement of the agreement, and lie - 'submitted that in this proceeding the Court had no jurisdiction to impose a fine under section 10. This was a penal offence, and notice must bo given. After some further argument, tlie Court retired to consider the question. On resuming, His Honor said file citation alleged clearly and specifically that a breach of section to had been committed, so that the defendants understood the charge was established. Tlie only question would be the amount of the penalty to be imposed. The Court thought, therefore, that it had jurisdiction to hear the present application, as an application for a penalty under section 10. Mr Skerrett: Am I to understand that I am to deal with tins application as if it were a substantive application under section lo of the Act. His Honor: Yes. 11l stating his case Mr Gray said tlie application was the first of its kind made in New Zealand under the Act, and there could be no doubt that the case was one of the greatest importance. There is, or was until a few days ago,an industrial'agreement between the two big meat companies and all, or nearly all, the employees. The agreement had run out, but was really still in force by virtue oi tlie provisions of the Act, and a largo number of tlie men were engaged slaughtering slieep at both works,and they were all being paid the rates which were fixed by agreement between their up ion and the companies. Counsel theii related what led up to the trouble. A letter was sent to each of the companies by the men on January 23, setting out certain alterations it lyas desired to have, made. Meetings of the union were held, and subsequently meetings of the men, which were largely attended. Oil February 11 the men struck. Some objection might be made to the use of this word, but lie contended that from a common-sense point of view there had been a strike. Counsel detailed the subsequent negotiations between the management and tlie men, and the latter’s ultimate refusal to kill more than such meat as was required for local consumption The result was that large numbers of slice]) were collected at Pc to ne, and some of them died- We understood that ' altogether about 40,000 sheep were on their way to the works. Tilings were not so bad at the Meat Company’s works, as {hoy were able to stop consignments. On the whole, the action of the men had resulted in very great loss and great inconvenience. The strike lasted till last Saturday, when the Gear Company was compelled to give in, and the Meat Export Company followed suit. The present position was that the strikers had compelled the employers to accede to their terms by a course which the Act was devised to prevent Tlie employers, tic added, had offered to pay as back pay any rate which the Court might ultimately fix. No more favorable opportunity for a strike could have been seized by the men. Proceedings against the union had been for tlie present postponed, and proceedings were (dsp ppnding against six men win) came out a few days later. 11 the oA’eucc was proved lie' should ask the Court to impose a penalty which would make it patent to all that the law’ must bo observed. This appeared to bo a deliberate attempt to break down the law and make the men the masters _of the situation. It was easy to imagine what would bavp l]0(:ii the case. i| the employers had taken steps to prevent the men working, or to decrease their wages. Ho urged that there could be no other conclusion from the men’s action than that they intended to commit a breach of section 10, and that the Court should therefore impose a substantial penalty. Counsel produced the agreement, which was to remain in force from August 1, 1904, until August 1, 1906,and should “continue in force until a new 7 agreement or award of (dm Court had been made.” - Arthur H. Cooper, secretary of the Wellington Slaughtermen's Industrial Union, said that all the. defendants w’cro members of the union. On February 11 a meeting oi the union, attended by about 90 of it's members, was hold to consider the offer made bv the companies. A resolution or agreement was avrivpji nt that the proposals of the companies were unsatisfactory, and another motion was carried instructing witness to take steps to secure the cancellation oi the union. The question of a strike was also discussed. The view taken by the men was that from past experience U lias fair fo assume that ill any application they might make ■for variation of an agreement the Court would not hear it lor twelve months, and it would therefore be better to cease work. *\ it ness told them it would be illegal to strike, and in answer to inquiries from the men told them that the only way to trot- rid of the agreement uas to cancel their registration. They talked about knoclung off work, hut the not use. Hie word ‘strike. die wait to Palmerston North, and took no Blither part in the dispute Ncithm witness nor tlie union aided or abetted the strike. John Corner, manager of tlie stock department at the Gear Company s works gave evidence of negotiations with the men. and of their knocking off work. Ho asked them if the: understood their position, and they •■■lid they quite knew what they were dohU. They offered to kill any sheep required tor local consumption, but lie told them that would lie no good. They then left. Mr Gray endeavored to get from witness a statement as to the average earnings of slaughtermen, but was oi er-ruled. , \y . Hawkins, clerk of awards for the Wellington industrial district, produced the award in tlie slaughtermen's case, which was filed on August 11. 1901.- ' Charles Edward Aldridge, inspector of aivards, said that he warned the men against their refusal to work, and that they were individually liable for a breach of the agreement. They replied that they,were perfectly satisfied as to their position. Richard Jones, a butcher employed at the Meat Export Company’s works and until lately president of the Slaughtermen’s Union, was called by Mr Gray. Witness said he told the men it was against the law to strike, and called. Mr. Cooper to explain the

position. lie told them they could not strike, ns it was contrary to tlie law.

Mr Skorrott: In your capacity as president of the union you have done nothing to aid or promote this strike P —No.

James Byron, slaughterman at the Meat Export Company’s works, was questioned on linos similar to the jn’cvious witness.

Mr Skorrott called no evidence. Addressing the Court for the defence lie maintained that bo bad no case to answer. Tlie prosecution had not established that there was an industrial agreement in force in this district. The agreement was not filed until August 11, 1904, one day over the thirty days after completion, within which it should have been filed.

Mr Brown Tlie company lias been fined under tlie agreement. •Mr Skorrott': I don’t, care whether (bey have or not. This point was not. raised, otherwise the company would not have been punished. Tlie agreement was bad. No date was specified in it for its commencement 1 There cridd be no post dating. Mr Gray contended that the agreement was sufficient to find the parlies. It hound both parties, and was accepted by them. Mr Skerrett: The statute says that cci tain conditions shall be complied with, and no party has power to abrogate the conditions. As to the beef Ini tellers, it was admitted that they struck.- He urged that if the Court decided to inflict a fine a moderate vindication of tlie law would be quite sufficient. The Court announced that it would take time 1,0 consider its judgment.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. £SOOO CLAIMED. The bearing of tlie action, Henry Mehaffey v the Auckland Electric l’ramways Company, Limited, for £SOO damages for alleged injuries received, was concluded before Mr. Justice Donniston and a jury of 12 at the Auckland Supreme Court last, .voek.

Dr. Bam ford and Mr. Prendergast nipeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs Earl and Newton on behalf of the defendant company. James J. Holland, builder and contiactor, said he was a passenger by the car from which Meliaffcy alighted on the lay in question. He saw Moliaffcv get off and go round the back of the ear. As he did so the conduetoi leaned over and warned M.oliaffey t.» look out for the car. Witness, who was somewhat deaf, heard the warn ing. MeUaffey, however, appeared to b< a little bit confused, and_ made across in flic direction of Wakefield street, with the result that be'was struck by the down ear. The down cm . in witness’ opinion, was not tra veiling at more than 10 miles an hour when it struck Mehaffey. Dr. Bakewell, who was a passenger by tlie down car, stated that from the Cemetery bridge to the point where it struck Mehaffey, the car travelled at the ordinary rate of speed. He was a timid man, and would have noticed if tlie car had been travelling at a high rate of speed- Witness did not consider the down par to blame for the accident. William Edwards, a passenger by the same car as plaintiff, said that as Mehaffey got off at Wakefield street, and went round the back of the car, tlie conductor said, “Stand back I Mind tlie car coming down!”To Mr, Prendergast : Witness was sure tlie conductor said the words “coming down." Inspector Cox said lie was on the front of tlie second up car when the accident happened. Witness saw Meliaft'e.y got off tlie first up car, and go round the back. As lie did so witness saw the conductor of the first car speak to Mehaffey, and then make a grab at him. saving “Coinc back!” Hugh M. Penfold, tram conductor, said be travelled by tlie same car as Meliaffcy on the (late in question, and Jieard the conductor warn Mehaffey. ' Tills concluded the case for the. defence, after which counsel addressed the jury. His Honor, in summing, up, reviewed the evidence at considerable length, and touched upon tlie questions to tlie jury:—l. Wore tlie defendants guilty of any act or acts of negligence causing {lie iiccqlent, L. If (‘Yes,’ : what were such acts oi any negligence, or want of care, which contributed to the accident. 3. What damages (if any) is tlie plain* tiff entitled ta? . The jury retired at twenty minf ris past four, and returned at twenty minutes to five to report that they hail agreed on one point on the first question, but had disagreed on another. They bad, however, agreed on ttie question as to whether plaintirr was guilty of any negligence or want of care, which contributed to the accident, and would answer this in the ijflirmafiye, In reply to bis Honor, as to wliat they had agreed upon on the first question, the foreman of the jury said that they had unanimously agreed that the gong was sounded. They were also unanimous in finding that tlie speed of the down car, when passing the stationary car, (lid not exceed 10 miles an hour, but were divided on the question as to whether this speed was dangerous, halt of the jury tiding of one opinion and halt ol the' other. They were not like y to agree. The jury were again ordered to retire, and his Honor left the Bench for a few minutes, m order that counsel might hold a consultation Tlie jury shortly afterwards wpre, called hr, and- discharged trom further' attendance. , . , , His Honor then entered judgment for the defendant company, with costs according to scale on tlio amount claimed.