WATERSIDE DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 102, 2 May 1930, Page 9

WATERSIDE DISPUTE.

CASE FOR THE UNION. VICTIMISATION DENIED. "WALKING DELEGATE'S" EVIDENCE The answer of the Auckland Waterside .Workers' Union to the charge of victimisation made against it by Thomas Moylan, also known as Thomas Miles, is being heard in the Supreme Court. Plaintiff alleged that in consequence of the attitude of the union and Robert Irvine, the union's "walking delegate," members of the union had refused to work with him. He claimed damages at the ( rate of £6 a week from March 23, 1920, to the date of judgment, also £300 damages for loss resulting, and £200 generai damages. A general denial of the allegations was contained in the statement of defence. Letter With £i Enclosed. Mr. P. J. O'Rcgan, for the defence, said the'trouble began with a letter written on March 24 last, in which a £1 note was enclosed, to "Paddy" O'Brien, foreman of the Union Steamship Compajiy. O'Brien had made it public, with the result that the union, was incensed against Miles and he had become most unpopular. Irvine had made an attempt at reconciliation and tried to obtain an explanation from Miles for the oflicials of the union. Unfortunately, this had not been given until late in the case. It was not accepted by the rank and file, and the officials could not persuade the men to allow Miles to work with them. . The "Peacemaker." Robert Irvine said in his evidence that he had been the union's "walking delegate"' for two years, and was commonly known on ' the wharf as the "peacemaker." On first hearing of the letter to O'Brien he treated the information as confidential, but complaints were made to him by numbers of the men. Miles would not accept witness' advice to make an explanation to the executive. On board the Port Napier on April 4, 1929, witness had been called to assist in the settlement of a dispute between Miles and the meu. Miles' attitude was a complete denial that he had sent the £1 note, and described it as a plot to bring him into discredit. On the Tofua, on April 15, witness advised the men strongly to continue work. The work went on and Miles was not put off. Witness had never told the men not to work with plaintiff. To Mr. Dicksqu (counsel for Moylan): The officers-of the union would have endeavoured to influence, the members to allow Miles to work with them, if the plaintiff had given an explanation to the executive.

Questioned by the Judge. Mr. Justice Smith: Do you not regard his action as a violation of the union principles ?—I do. .His Honor: I can't understand your attitude then. Further questioned by his Honor, witness maintained that, although the plaintiff had violated the principles of the union, they were to work with' him and he argued with them. His Honor: Where did you do it?— In the executive meetings and at stopwork meetings. Often ?—Various times. How often did the matter come up at the executive meetings?— Two or three times. Would that be recorded in the minutes? —No. Who raised the matter?—l did. You dissociated yourself from the attitude of.the men?— Absolutely, right through the piece. To Mr. Dickson: He had warned the men that they had no legal right to prevent plaintiff from working witli them. His Honor: Did you know the whole body of the men would refuse to work with Miles? —Oh, no ; only individual men. Re-examined by- Mr. O'Regan, witness said there had been occasions when nonunion men were employed while plaintiff and other union men were not engaged. The explanation was that union men sometimes held back for a "big job" and that the decision as to what men were engaged remained with the foreman. "Men Up in Arms." Charles S. Morris, president of- tho Waterside Workers' Union, said he had been on the waterfront for ten years. As a member of the disputes committee he was immediately advised of the trouble that had occurred. The usual practice was for the men to continue work while the dispute was being considered. After the Tofua incident the men were "up in arms." Before the disputes committee met its members visited the Tofua. Witness invited the plaintiff to go to the Union Company's office, but plaintiff refused to leave the vessel. (Proceeding.)