§ Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been directed to the trial of 193 workmen before the general munitions tribunal at Newcastle; whether the offence for which these men have been tried arose out of their objection to leave munitions work in order to do commercial work; and, if he will state how many thousand hours of lost time on munitions work have been involved in their trial?
§ Dr. ADDISONMy right hon. Friend has received reports of the case in question. There were three sittings. At the first, on the 24th September, twenty-two men were fined 5s. each. The men in question had been engaged on work upon an Admiralty vessel, and had been transferred to an oil-tank steamer. They were found to have struck work upon a vessel required for use in War. The chairman of the tribunal, in announcing the punishment, explained that there were elements of doubt in the case which influenced him in inflicting a light penalty. At the second and third meetings the cases of 148 men1022W were heard. These men were found guilty of a sympathetic strike. The fines inflicted were £1 each on the riveters, and 10s. on each holder-on and apprentice riveter. The offence committed against the Act was, in the view of the chairman, a serious one, and the question of hours lost in trying the case is completely irrelevant.
§ Mr. ANDERSONalso asked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been directed to the statement of the chairman of the Munitions Court held at Lincoln, in the case of a man charged with absenting himself from work one day and with losing time, to the effect that the firm should apply to become a controlled establishment so that they could discharge the workman and by withholding his certificate prevent him getting work elsewhere for six weeks and so punish him; and whether it was intended that this penalty of six weeks' enforced idleness should apply to any offence under the Act other than that of the workman leaving his employment without permission?
§ Dr. ADDISONMy right hon. Friend has no information as to the facts alleged in the question, but he is communicating with the chairman.