£2000 LIBEL CLAIM

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27584, 15 February 1955, Page 14

£2000 LIBEL CLAIM

CARPENTERS’ UNION SUED

CONTRACTOR ALLEGES DEFAMATION

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, February 14.

A Johnsonville builder, in a Supreme Court action today, claimed £2OOO from the New Zealand Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Union and William Molineux, the union’s secretary, for alleged libel in the union publication, the “New Zealand Building Worker.” The action was brought by Douglas Joseph Barlow. The article was signed by Molineux. The case was heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) and a jury of 12. Sir Wilfrid Sim, Q.C., with him Mr F. J. Kember, appeared for Barlow. Mr C. H. Arndt appeared for the union and Molineux. Sir Wilfrid Sim said the newspaper was the official publication of the New Zealand Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Union, with a circulation of almost 10,000. The article complained of appeared in the issue of August, 1954, and was a “smearing article.” It was also libellous and defamatory, and injured the plaintiff in his business and general reputation. The article, said Sir Wilfrid Sim, alleged that Barlow paid bare award wages; had a filthy shed for workers to eat from; and had a truck canopy that did not comply with the award. The article stated that the union’s office would not send tradesmen to Barlow.

Sir Wilfrid Sim said that, for a long time, Barlow not cnly paid the full award wages, but also generous voluntary bonuses. There were sheds for carpenters, labourers, and tools, which left no reasonable grounds for complaint. The truck gave reasonable satisfaction, apart from a technical breach involving a buz?br. The statement that carpenters with some respect for themselves who wanted work should go to the union office, and would not be sent to Barlow, was defamatory, counsel said. The article referred to a dispute existing at the time of going to press, said Sir Wilfrid Sim. It arose about the pouring of concrete and the tying of steel by carpenters. Carpenters and builders’ labourers could do the work, and there was no provision in their awards for extra payments. Extra Payments Sought Early in 1954, the matter of extra payment for the work was raised, and Barlow was willing to comply with constitutional procedure for determining the matter, said counsel. Steps were taken to have this matter sent to a disputes committee, but Molineux said no disoute existed. Proceedings on the award fell to the ground, and “we have In its place this article,” said Sir Wilfrid Sim. After the publication of the article, Barlow’s supply of carpenters dried up immediately. The timing of the article and the way it was written were an abuse of power, maligning and abusing the employer.

Initially the action had been brought in the Magistrate’s Court, where it was hmited to £5OO, said Sir Wilfrid Sim. The defendants removed it to the Supreme Court and the claim was lodged for £2OOO.

x. evidence, the plaintiff said he had been m business as a contractor t or J 6 years. For the last 15 months, he had been working on his present contract at the Wellington East Girls’ College. This contract was for £69,000 His relations with his men had had always been excellent, and his men had always worked contentedly for him, said Barlow. He had a good staff Of permanent carpenters who stayed with him from year to year. Some of them had been with him for 10 years. It was his practice to pay award rates of 5s an hour, plus a tool allowance of M. In addition he paid his carpenters an hourly bonus of 7d, and sometimes 4d an hour to trainees. The statement that carpenters could be sure of receiving not more than bare award wages was untrue, he said. He had also helped his men outside their work, and assisted them with building houses and with loans.

Molineux’, Visits to Job On July 16, 1954, Molineux had addressed the men on the job, said Barlow. He told the witness he iiad a signed agreement with the Fletcher Construction Company, allowing extra pay for concrete and steel work. After Molineux had been with the men for quarter of an hour, the witness told him to leave. Molineux requested a further five minutes, and then reported that the men had refused to pour concrete or tie steel unless they were pa .!?.. a P en atty rate of 4d an hour. We were in the middle of a big concrete pour that day,” said the witness. He agreed to pay the 4d an hour to get the job done. The men wanted to work with him, but did not want to offend the union. Molineux returned the next week and was refused admission by the works foreman, said Barlow The next development was the publication of the article in the trade journal Since the publication of the article he had lost 10 carpenters, said the witness. Advertisements in the daily newspapers had not drawn a single He had visited the work site on 15 occasions, and the sheds provided seemed particularly good for that job, said Charles Henry Hemsley, an inspector of scaffolding. The plaintiff’s foreman, John Michael Collins, said the job delegate had never shed? ained cond * t *on of the The case will continue tomorrow.