âQuashes Convictions of 14 On Illegal Strike Charges,â Toronto Star. December 20, 1941. Page 2. ---- Finds No Evidence C.G.E. Under Industrial Disputes Investigation Act ---- SEEK RECOGNITION --- A judgement delivered by Mr. Justice Gillanders yesterday quashes convictions by Magistrate Forsyth against 14 employees of the Canadian General Electric Co. on charges of striking illegally.
The convictions followed a walkout June 4 at two plants of the C.G.E., one at Davenport Rd. and the other at Ward St. The magistrate fined the men $20 a day for every day they were off work, with an alternative of 10 days in jail. The convictions were entered July 15.
Mr. Justice Gillanders found there was no evidence that the company came within the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
On behalf of the strikers, J.L. Cohen pleaded on appeal that there was no proof the plant was engaged in war work at the time and no proof was offered that the men were actually on strike.
Says Recognition Concerned Mr. Cohen contended that the matter of the strike, if there was one, concerned union recognition, and the Industrial Disputes Investigation AAct was not intended to apply to union recognition.
The appellants were F. Prayer, G. Warn, R. Betts, J. Pilkington, Michael J. Martin, H. Peace, H. Reye, R. Stephens, A. Moyanihan, J. Turner, D. Wallace, A. Harty, E. Haugthon and J. Munslow.
Mr. Justice Gillanders says in his judgement:Â âOrder-in-council 4669, while it declares the plant in question to be an essential service unit with a view to assisting the civil authorities in the enforcement of the Defence of Canada regulations, does not declare the plant in question.of the work, undertaking or business of the company there carried on to be among those specified in order-in-council 3459, which order-in-council extends the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
âMust Be Reversedâ âI am unable to conclude that Order-in-council 4660 brings the plant and dispute in question here within the provisions of order-in-council 3495 extending the provision of the I.D.A In my opinion there is no evidence in the stated case to support a finding that the plant in question here came under the provisions of the act.
âFor the reasons stated I am of the opinion that the determination of the magistrate that on the facts stated the accused were guilty as chared must be reversed and the conviction set aside.â











