UNION MEMBERSHIP.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 122, 25 May 1932, Page 10

UNION MEMBERSHIP.

REFUSAL IN WELLINGTON. TWO MEN SEEK DAMAGES. * CONDITIONS ON WATERFRONT. ® u Actions arising out of the refusal of j the Wellington Waterside Workers' -t Union to admit two men to membership of the union were brought in the t Supreme Court in Wellington be- J fore Mr. Justice Ostler by the two t men concerned to recover damages j against the union for loss of work and 6 for a writ of mandamus compelling the i union to enrol them as members. i Tho plaintiffs were Thomas Antonio | Wells and George Hardgreaves, relief ] workers, at one time employed by the , Wellington Harbour Board. I The case for the plaintiff in each instance was that application was made < for membership in January last, and 1 on February 4 each received information that the application was rejected on the grounds that he had not a . certificate of allegiance to the union dining the waterside workers' strike in 1913. The Court was asked to declare 1 that the plaintiffs became members of the union on February 4, 1932, and to issue a writ of mandamus upon the union compelling it to enrol them. The 1913 Strike. Wells said he had kept touch with the position on the waterfront, and had he been a member of the union he could have had work all the time since January. His earnings with the Harbour Board had been £4 10/ to £5 a week, but since January 19 he had had L 2 weeks' work at 30/ and two at 25/ as a relief worker. To counsel for tho union, witness said he did not remember Mr. Johnson, secretary .to the union, saying "Who told you you had been kept out because you hadn't the 1913 stamp?" He might have said that. Counsel: You know the Waterside Workers' Union is limited to 1450 members ! Witness: They have 1527 on the books. How do you know?—l was told by a union man. I didn't know the union was limited. Witness added that he had been in the union before, and thought he was entitled to join. Case For the Union. Counsel for the union, having applied , for a nonsuit —which question was , reserved —said that in 1924 it was ■ decided in the interests of waterside workers to limit the membership of the [ union, this object being referred to as i "decasualising waterside work." It was . agreed in 1925 by the employers and • workers' federated bodies that 1450 men were sufficient to work the waterfront. They had a few "spares" so that men were 'always available. Provision was made for a five per cent margin, and when, in January, they found that there were over 1500 members, several applications had to be rejected. John Oldham Johnson, secretary to tho union, denied telling plaintiffs that they were refused because they had not the" 1913 stamp. The average earnings of men on the waterfront at present weie about £3 a week. No admissions to the union had been made since January, and I that was why the plaintiffs' applications . were refused. It had nothing to do with the 1913 stamp. . t Tlio witness then produced tho minute book of the excutivo meetings, and read from the record of a meeting on April 2, 1931, "The executive recommends that C the executive bo empowered to admit men who apply for membership and who n were loyal to the union in 1913, and who I have applied during the past month. e That only applied to those _ men who II made application at that time. Since 0 then tho resolution had been rescinded. y His Honor reserved his decision.