UNION SUED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 101, 1 May 1930, Page 8

UNION SUED.

WATERSIDER'S CLAIM. VICTIMISATION ALLEGED. A RELUCTANT WITNESS. JUDEG EXPRESSES SURPRISE. Allegations'that he had been victimised by the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union were made in the Supreme* Court .this morning before Mr. Justice Smith by Thomas Moylan, otherwise known as Thomas Miles. The "walking delegate" of the union, Robert Irvine, was joined with the Waterside Workers' Union as' defendant. Mr. P. J. O'Regan, of Wellington, and Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for the defendants, and Mr. J.. If. W. Dickson for the plaintiff. Moylan claimed damages at the rate of £6 a week from March 23, 1929, to dato of judgment, also £300 because he was not able to obtain any further employment as a waterside' worker, and £200 general damages. Moylan alleged that practically daily from March 25, 1929, until the date of issue of the writ, the union and its servants or agents, particularly Irvine, had refused unlawfully to permit any master or employer to employ him. He further alleged that in April, 1929, there had been interference by the union with his contract of service, and that Irvine induced or caused the employers to discharge him before his service was lawfully terminated. This allegation referred to the "Port Napier incident" (April 4), when Irvine (plaintiff alleged) said to the plaiittiff that Tie would not secure more work on"the wharves; and to April 15, when the men refused to continue working with him on the Tofua, after an address to the men by Irvine. A complete denial of the allegations was made by the union and Irvine. "Brotherhood of Man!" "It is a strong commentary on the brotherhood of man, as enunciated by •the union," said Mr. Dickson in his address to the Court. "The plaintiff has virtually been declared 'black' by the members." Counsel traced a sequence of events, commencing with a letter written on March 24 by plaintiff's wife to the foreman of the Union Steamship Company and enclosing a £1 note. That was regarded by the union as a breach of its regulations. Plaintiff denied any knowledge of the letter until later, although it was signed "Paddy Miles." Plaintiff had the greatest possible difficulty in getting any 'evidence, continued Mr." Dickson'. Captain Anderson and Captai Fox took up 'the attitud9 that they did not want to be mixed up in disputes between the union and its members. "I have been compelled to subpoena these two gentlemen/' • counsel added. "They don't desire to take sides in this case." At the time the trouble commcnced Miles had savings amounting to £240, but that money was gradually eaten up, said counsel, and the plaintiff and his wife and. family were now dependent on 13/ a week charitable aid. "The vendetta Avas continued in spite of appeals to the union," said counsel. "Ship Will he Stuck Up."

Captain H. A. Anderson, wharf superintendent of the Union Company, said he had telephoned Irvine on several occasions that he was going to engage Miles, and the reply wa3, "If you do the ship will be-stuck up." Several times after April 15, 1929, the same Teply was given. To Mr. O'Regan, witness said he had reason to believe Irvine was inciting the men. ' Asked to give his reasons, -he said he preferred not to answer the question, as it might affect his relations with the union. His Honor:.lf Mr. O'Regan presses the question, you must answer. } ;, .' ' .Mr. O'Regan said it was important to have the witness' answer, because tlie contention for the defence was that the watersidera refused to work with the plaintiff, and Irvine used his to placate the men and induce them to sink their objections. Further, it was contended that plaintiff had been defiant and truculent, and had made an amicable settlement impossible. "Astounding Suggestion." His Honor: It is a most astounding suggestion that the union can damage Captain Anderson. Witness: I am positive of it. They can give me the go-slow policy timey out of number. I did not conic here oi my own free will to give evidence. After a ruling from the Bench that the question be allowed, witness said that Irvine had spoken of Miles as a "pimp to the police." Port Napier Incident. Captain G. E." Fox, stevedore to the Auckland branch of the Cunard Line, said that he had received advice on April 4, 1929, of a cessation of work about 10 a.m. on the Port Napier. He was advised on board the vessel of a complaint against Miles, and that the men would not work with him. He gave Miles time off in order to clear himself with the union. Miles did not return that day. Plaintiff, in evidence, said he was known as "Paddy Miles." He had been a union member for eight or nine ycais. His average earnings were £6 a week. Both the Port Napier and the Tofua "incidents" were described by the plaintiff. Irvine, who was the "walking delegate" of the union, had addressed the men on the Port Napier on the morning of April 4, and informed tlieni they were not to work with plaintiff because of his breach of the regulations. He had to leave the vessel. On the Tofua, eleven days later, Irvine again addressed the men, and again they refused to work with witness. Witness attempted to continue cargo work in the hold but received a blow on the shoulder with a broken piece of a banana case. It was made impossible for him to remain. At a union meeting on May 7 a member had said, "Have nothing to do with this man; be guided by the union." "Conspiracy" Against Union. Witness said he had tried on frequent occasions to get work. Mr. Sullivan; If the foreman of the Union Co. had accepted your bribe do you think you would have been given preference? —I can't say. Mr. Sullivan suggested the letter _of March 24 was a "conspiracy" involving the union. Further, Mr. Sullivan suggested to the witness that his letters to the union between April and November had contained complaints against the employers, and., nothing had been said against tho union or Irvine until later. This tho plaintiff admitted. (Proceeding.)