UNION'S DEFENCE

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 103, 3 May 1930, Page 11

UNION'S DEFENCE

CLAIM BY WATERSIDER. attitude of president. JUDGE RESERVES DECISION. Decision was reserved in the pase in which a watersider, Thomas MayUn, otherwise known as Thomas Mdes (M . Dickson), proceeded against the Watei side Workers' Union and its wallun delegate," Robert Irvine Mi. . • O'Regan, of Wellington, and Mr. bul livan). The hearing took place m Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Sunt i, and occupied two days. . Damages were claimed by the plainti at the rate of £6 a week from March 23 1929, the date of judgment, ah=o .WOO for loss resulting Irom analiened coi spiracy to prevent the plamtiff fiom obtaining employment on the watufront and £200 general damages. At'the opening of the lie^' ing Thursday Mr. Dickson stated l.iui tne trouble arose out of a sequence of eventb beginning with a letter written on March 24 1929, by the plaintiff's wife to Paddy O'Brien, foreman of the Union Steamship Co., and enclosing a £1 note. This was regarded by the defendant union as a breach of i-'-s regnlat.oiis. For moie than twelve months following Uvo incidents" in April, the plaintiff had been unable to get work on tlfe Auckland waterfront, his earnings had disappeared, and he and his wife and family were now living on ch'uvty. Efforts to persuade Mites to give an explanation before the union executive were explained by the president of the Waterside Workers' Union, _ Charles Stephen Morris, who said he believed the trouble could have been largely overcome by adopting that course. On every occasion the suggestion was made to Mues he firmly refused to come. Under the direction of witness, Mrs. Miles had written a letter accepting responsibility for the original letter and offering a lull apology!" The union officials had been keenly desirous of avoiding any action that would injure the plaintiff, and »vitr.ess had been considerably "by members for allowing miei views with Miles to take place at his house. Will O'Brien, foreman of the Union Steamship Co., said that Mrs. Miles nud come to him the day after the let-let containing the £1 note reached him a-ivl showed that she had written it. Ilie letter he regarded as a great insult. Representatives of Nearing and Co., stevedores, and the Union Steamship Co. deposed that they had no instructions to refuse employment to Miles, and they and other company officials responsible for engaging - labour on the waterfront said that they had not refused to employ Miles. Captain H. A. Anderson, wharf superintendent of the Union Company, who was recalled, said the Disputes Committee, which sat in April last year to consider the position created between Miles and the union, broke up in disorder. Witness insisted that Miles should go back to his work and that the others should also resume. After the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Dickson argued that Irvine had acted within the scope of his authority as a representative of the union. His Honor said he hoped to give his decision on Monday morning.