VICTIMISATION ALLEGED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 69, Issue 119, 1 March 1949, Page 4

VICTIMISATION ALLEGED

MILL WORKER’S DISMISSAL Case Opened Before Tribunal Alleging victimisation in his dismissal from the Ashburton mill of Lane, Walker, Rudkin, Ltd., J. K. Campbell sought reinstatement before a reconstituted tribunal under the Strike and Lockout Emergency Regulations, sitting at the Ashburton Courthouse to-day. The hearing is expected to last three days. Power was given the company and the Canterbury Trades Council of the Federation of Labour to subpoena witnesses. The tribunal is asked to decide the justification or otherwise of Campbell’s dismissal, whether he should be reinstated, and if so, what compensation, if any, should he paid him. When the adjournment was taken at. noon, Mr Gresson had completed his submission, and the evidence of Campbell was about to be heard. The tribunal consists of Messrs J. A. Gilmour. S.M. (chairman), A. 13. Grant (representing workers) and It. O’Shea (representing employers). Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr V. W. Russell, is appearing for the company, while Mr T. A. Gresson, with him Mr B. McClelland, is appearing for the Canterbury Trades Council on behalf of the local branch of the Mill Employees’ Union. v. in his opening submissions, Mr Gresson said James Kerr Campbell had joined the staff of the mill at Easter, 1948, as a machine operator on night shift in the worsted department. Prior to that, he had worked at the local freezing works on seasonal work. He was dismissed from the mill in early December of 1948. He had latterly been secretary of the Ashburton branch of the Drivers’ Union. . Given a Trial For the first few months of Campbell’s employment at the mill, nothing untoward had occurred, said Mr Gresson. But early in July, Campbell was given a trial as leading hand. He did not get promoted to this position, but the' fact that he had been given the trial led to a protest from a section of his fellow workers.

It would have . represented a very quick advancement had Campbell got the position, as Campbell had only been with the mill eight months. At ail executive meeting of the workers’ union on July 17, it was decided to petition the management (Mr John Lane) concerning the proposed promotion of Campbell. This was the first significant event in Campbell's employment at the mill. Evidence would disclose that much of the later resentment of Campbell arose from this trial. Allegations often arose of a man ingratiating himself with the management to secure quick promotion.

“My submission will be that this spark caused a small flare-up in July, which subsided, hut Avas not completely extinguished, and fanned by what Ave contend to> be false rumours, burst into a conflagration at the end of November in Avhat may be termed the ‘Melville incident,’” said Mr Gresson. When it Avas decided against prom fling him, Campbell did not go hack to the spinners, hut went back to the “rovers” where he dreAv better pay. After a short time there, he was. asked to transfer to “twisters,” Avhicli involv ed a di’op in pay. Campbell challenged this with the leading hands, foreman, and finally the manager. Campbell had considered it unfair to have been given the trial and then been “knocked back” to a job Avith even less pav. He was persistent in appealing against what he termed an “injustice.” Later, when rates of pay Avere being discussed, Campbell urged that the award be posted in the mill according to the IaAV. He had appealed to the Department of Labour to this end. “His attitude Avas hardly one which Avould endear him to the management,” said Mr Gresson. Question of Overtime . There Avas also a question of overtime payment, which Campbell referred to the Labour Department, which raised the matter with the management. “It would appear that this also was resented.” At the end of November w© come to tlie “Melville incident,” said Mr Gresson. This was an event which took place during night shift, and later evidence would deal at length with if. This incident arose from Campbell’s presence out in the yard, which Mr Melville in charge of the cafeteria, and another man named Boyd, considered sinister, and proof positive that Campbell Avas “snooping” on them. It confirmed a suspicion they had that Campbell Avas watching them to report breaches of duty. This Avould be one of the most important points in the ease.

This incident was enough to engender a “heated row.” Shortly after Campbell returned to his machine, Melville came up to him and, to use a colloquialism, “had a piece of him,’ and accused him of “snooping.” Melville accused him outright, and Campbel was prepared to tight him after telling him not to be childish. Shortly before knock-off time at 1.30 am.. Campbell decided to have the matter out with Melville ,and this was done in the presence of the nightwatchnian (Taylor). Campbell would say that both incidents were not protracted. When he reported l’or work the following Monday, Campbell was told by another workman that Melville was reporting the matter. Campbell decided to see the management to put his case, but Melville saw the management first. When Campbell saw the .manager he, was greeted with the words —“You're just, the man I want 1o see; take a week’s notice.” Campbell asked the reason, and was told the earlier incidents over the, award and payment of overtime rankled with Mr Lee, said Mr Gresson. Campbell tried to offer his side of the matter, but was peremptorily cut short. On December 6, Mr Lee gave him a reference indicating he had been with the mill eight months and that his work had been entirely satisfactory. Nothing was said about his character. but equally, nothing was written in favour of it. It would appear that at the time of his dismissal no complaint was made of his working ability. “Was the dismissal justified?” asked

Mr Gresson. Substantially, in the light of what was known of Campbell at that date, it was for the tribunal to decide. Apart from the petition which arose in July concerning the proposed promotion of Campbell, there had been no action taken against him by the woollen mill union. It was significant there had been no discussion, apart from the question of his promotion trial, by the union, of Campbell’s behaviour. Outline 1 of Dispute Mr Gresson proceeded to outline the history of the dispute. It was plain that the local branch of the Millworkers’ Union did not approve of the Trade Council’s action in going over their heads in Campbell’s ease, lie said. Mr Lee had given his assurance to a delegation from the Trades Council that if the workers would have him back, Campbell would be reinstated. On December’ 23, a meeting of the niglit-workers had considered the question. Twelve favoured Campbell’s reinstatement, eight were against it, and a number abstained. From December, the matter assumed the form of a trades dispute. After this constitutional matter had been ironed out, Campbell placed his case in the hands of the local union. Unfortunately, a statement had been made to the press making certain allegations, to which the company had not replied. ' “Thank goodness Mr Campbell is not a Communist,” said Mr Gresson. “If he were, then the issue would lie clouded.” “Our case is that this man has suffered a real injustice,” added Mr Gresson, in appealing to the tribunal to consider the case on the evidence presented, and to ignore preliminary manoeuvres and publicity in the dispute. Following Campbell’s dismissal from the mill lie had, through the Department of Labour, taken a job as portei at the hospital. Through the intervention of Mr and Mrs Lee, the matron had found it desirable to refer the matter back to the department. “Mr Lee evidently has a ‘set’ against. Campbell, and this" has been a major factor m his dismissals from the mill and hospital,” concluded Mr Gresson. Campbell’s Evidence No prospects had been held out to him when he was engaged by the mill-manager as a machine operator on night shift, said Campbell in reply to a question by Mr Gresson. He knew one or two men at the mill when he took the job, and did not anticipate any personal difficulty. Mr Gresson: You joined the local union at the mill, but took no part in its affairs?—That is correct.

Were you ever asked why you’ did not attend union meetings?—Yes. Witness said the night shift lasted from 5 p.m. till 1.30 a.m. There was a break of 10 minutes at 7 p.m., half-an-hour for supper at 9 p.m., and a further 10-minute spell at 11.20 p.m. Most of the men spent these breaks in the cafeteria, but witness decided not to continue visiting the cafeteria after a time because as a non-smoker he objected to the smoke-filled room, lie had on occasions been “chipped” for not going into the cafeteria. Referring to witness’s trial for a leading-hand position, Mr Gresson asked from whom he first heard there Avas a possibility of his promotion. Witness: Mr Lee. He said he had pointed out that there were more experienced men Avhom lie considered should have the position, but Mi Lee, had in effect, replied that he Avas running the mill. j Mr Gresson: Was it ever put to you that you should “pimp” and tell on the men? —Never at any stage. Witness added that he learned later that this trial promotion was objected to by some of the men, and had been the subject of a petition to the management. i .. , Hoav long did the trial last?—About three weeks. Then what were you told?—That l was going hack to the machines. Who told you? —Mr Harrison, one of the leading hands. He said the instructions had come through from the office. . Did you protest when you received a smaller wage on “twisters” than on “rollers”?—Yes. To whom?—To Harrison and Re J, the tAvo leading hands, to Dawson, the foreman, and to Mr Lee. What happened? —Mr Lee relused to pay me any more. No Indication of Dismissal Did you mention the presence or absence of the award to the Labour Department?—Y es. And Avas it later put up as a result of your inquiries?—Yes. It Avas exhibited in the worsted department. During the months of August, September, October and November, were any complaints made by the management about your work?—No. Were any complaints made by the management about your behaviour or demeanour in that period?—No. Did you get any indication of impending dismissal? —No. Were you approached by any union official regarding your behaviour?— No. Regarding your “shindy”with Melville, were things going normally up till 11.30 p.m. on the night?—Yes. About what time did you go outside?—About 12.15. Where did you go?—Out the backdoor and into the yard. As you went out into the yard, the cafetaria would be on your right, and you Avould pass across the line of the door?—Yes. Did you sec anybody?—Yes, a chap named Boyd, and Melville behind the counter of the cafetaria. These two people Averc of no interest or concern to me. Witness said that Boyd had reached the door of the Avorsted department just as he (Campbell) Avas approaching the same door to go inside again. Did Boyd say anything?—Yes, lie turned round and said, “Hoav long have you been there?” What did you say?—l told him I had just come out. What was Melville's attitude Avhen 1 he came over to you at your machine a llt tit' lat.cfr?—llo seemed a bit angry. What did in; say?—Ho asked what door L bad come out of. I told him, “The backdoor, Jack.” What did he say to that?—“Like hell you did!” Then Avhat happened?—He took off. You mean he left?—Yes. When Melville Avcnt out to the cycle shed to get his cycle to go home, you folloAved him?—Yes. What did you say to him?—l asked him Avhat he had meant by his remark. What Avas his reply?—He said to me “You’ve been b Avell spying on , me.” ! What did you say?—l answered,

“You’ve got a guilty conscience, Jack, I haven’t.” Was anyone about Avhen this incident took place at the cycle shed?— Yes, Taylor, the nightAvatchman. Hoav long do you think you Avere out in the yard Avhen you went out at 42.15?—A couple of minutes. Did you expect to hear anything more about the incident Avith Melville?—l did not. What Avas your reaction Avlien you heard Melville was going to see the boss?—l thought 1 would see him, too. He discussed it with Reid, but tlve latter told him not to worry about it. But von Avent to Mr Lee on the Tuesday ?—Yes. Melville was already there. ~ Hoav long did you Avail to see Mr Lee?—About 15 minutes. What took place?—Mr Lee Avas standing by Ids desk, and said, “You’re just the man 1 Avaut to see; take a week’s notice.” .1 said, “On what grounds ?” What did he answer? —That I was causing discontent among the staff, and their interests were paramount to him. , , i Anything else?—Yes, that he would report me to the Labour Department and that he didn’t Avaut to hear any explanation that he had heard enough. I asked him to reconsider his decision, but he refused. (Proceeding)