UNION SUED.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17607, 9 November 1922, Page 3

UNION SUED.

FRICTION OVER A LEVY. DAMAGES AWARDED. (rfiSSS ASSOCIATION TKUGGIUH.) WELLINGTON, November 7. The action of five members of the Wellington Waterside Union, each claiming a mandamus ordering the union to recognise them as members, and ain injunction restraining the union from representing them as nonmembers, and £5Ol damages, was continued before Mr Justice Hosknig today. William Charles McGee, one of the five plamtitts, said that he had been a watersider for 11 years. He described the meetings at which the levy was discussed, and he had taken round a requisition for a special meeting on the suuject. Tins nail lbU signatures, but he iiad received no repiy to the requisition after hauding it to the secretary. In I'eoruary he had ottered 24s subscription to me assistant-secretary, wiio said he would taKe the levy and let the subscription stand over. Later, witness ottered the lull amount but was refused and told that he must appear belore the executive to explan. nis attitude towards the union, tliu being due to his action in distributing tile, iederutiom balance-sheet.

William H. 6. Bennett, manager of the Wellington Co-operative \\ aterside Labour Employment Association, said that he knew a levy had been struck and that there had been difficulty in collecting it. Bruce had told him that a number of men were unfinancial and according to th& agreement were not eligible for employment Witness told Bruce that he would bring the matter before the employers. The wearing of badges by the men was desirable, but some men wore them upside down. The badges had to be closely examined. It was explained by the union representatives that Tilley was not a member of the union. That being so, employers could not employ him when there were other watersiders available. Sir John Findlay: Apart from Tilley, you were not informed that the other plaintiffs were not financial? — No. His Honour: Then how do you account for these men not securing employment? Witness: I understand some of the union officials approached the foremen. I must say that whenever the union officials did approach the foremen 1 protested against it. Captain R. S. Walton, local marine superintendent for the Union Company, said that the levy had been a _ matter of general comment between union officials and the employers. They knewthat there was a certain amount of frictionl At one stage, witness said, the secretary of the Union mounted a stool alongside a foroman, presumably for the purpose of pointing out unfin ncial members of the Union. During the last six months there had been general slackness on the waterfront. Good men received' from £5 10s to £6, but a fair average was £4 10.;. Recalled, Mr Bennett was questioned as to earnings on the waterfront. The average wage, he said, for the who eot the wharf for the twelve months preceding August Ist was £3 19s 9d, the figures being based on the earnings of 1100 men. There was «t drop of just over £1 a week per man over the previous year. The previous ye.'r had been the best on record since the Association had.been formed.

Sir John Findlay, opening for the defendant Union, said they had been told that these proceedings were not an . titt.i'ok on • unionism., but he urged that the proceedings were an attack on unionism, and on a most vital part of unionism. A house divided against itself could not stand: The jury had been led to believe that the Federation was an outside body that had been making a. levy on the. Wellington Union improperly. The levy had been affirmed again and again by the men. The only purpose of the levy was for_ the general good of the whole of the Unions, not for the Federation, in case of need. That fund was available for the Wellington Union to-day. It was not an annual levy. The money col'ected was not to be retained by the Wellington Union, but was to be fonvmrdeu to the Federation, which would use it for general purposes. The . Wellington Union was bound to pay the levy to. the Federation. A resolution rot to pay. tho levy would not have prevented the-Federation from suing the Wellington Union for the money. The reason why members of the Union refused to work with the five, plaintiffs, continued Siv John Fi idlay, was that they had resented their action in not paying the levy. It was not the officers of the Union who would suffer from a verdict in ot tiie plaintiffs, but any damages awarded would have to come «ut of the pockets of the hard-working members. Was this fair? The o?i.-.e on which the claim was founded was wretchedly trivial. The plaintiffs could have paid theii levy unde- protect, but instead of that thev had adopted a course tliat would be like'y to result in the greatest damage. The el lm for damages was grossly exaggerated. James Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Watersides Federation, sai'J that the defence fund levy had originated from a request made to the Unions for remits on the subject. The New Plymouth ■ Union sent in a remH asking for the establishment of a fund and a similar remit was sent in from an executive officer. Copies of the remit-, were circulated to all Unions in October, 1920, with a request that- delegates should, be instructed how to The remit came before the conference in 1823, and the committee recommended the striking of a levy of £1 per head. That recommendation was adopted by the conference, and Bruce was the only Wellington delegate to vote against the proposal. The rule empowering the Federation to strike a levy was included in the rules of the Federation in June. 1921. The number of water siders in New Zealand was 5600. The fund, said witness, was not for the purpose of sending delegates overseas. A recent instance of the object of the fund was the payment .for a verbatim report of the rerent A r b*itration Court proceedings. Any member could get a copv of the balance-sheet of the Federation, but they did not want it to get circulated amongst the public. To Mr Perry, Roberts snid it was not a most unusual thin;i for debgates to go to a labour conference with free hands. The delegates had no mandate. Witness did not christen it "the fighting fund." Some New Plymouth men gave it that name. "Defence fund" was a nice suitable name. To his Honour: We fight to defend ourselves. Many of the men paid the lew voluntarily. 'f. Glover, president of the Waterside Union, said badges were reintroduced in 1920. It was not compulsory to wear the badrje. Its purpose was to enable the labour foremen to know who were members of the Union. The reason certain men were brought before the executive was because the Union, not the executive, decided on such a course. The vote on the levy was taken in a perfectly fair manner. The statement tliac the balanoe-sheefc was keot from members was not correct. Plaintiffs were the only men left who had not paid the levy. Mr Watson* Are you a revolutionary Socialist? Witness: What do you mean by that? The term, is too vague. Tell me your definition and I will answer your ouestion. Mr "\Vatson: What do you mean by job action? Does it mum action on

the job to the . detriment of the emplover? . . Witness said if there were men who held that to be job action, he did not associate himself with suoh men. Jilr Watson asked witness if he haa not sooken at the 1920 conference of "Putting into operation on the job industrially all they accuse you of doing. That'is the only effective way to treat these parasites." . Witness: That sounds all right. Mr Watson: Gentlemen of the jury I hope vou will note that. Mr Watson: You are also an advocate of the Council of Action? Witness: "Yes." In reply to further questions he said it was not a strike fund, I>ut a defence fund. As for the levy, it was his duty to put into operation as far as possible any resolution carried. November 8. The five plaintiffs—Robert Gould, Charles Patrick Kavanagh, Michael Leddy, John Tilley and William Charles McGee —were each awarded £2OB damages. '