WALSH GIVES EVIDENCE IN LIBEL ACTION

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29058, 21 November 1959, Page 14

WALSH GIVES EVIDENCE IN LIBEL ACTION

Events Leading To Wage Claim Recounted I (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 20. Fintan Patrick Walsh, principal defendant in a £13,500 libel action in the Supreme Court, at Wellington, today denied that he had become friendly with the Communists.

This had been alleged earlier in the hearing by the plaintiff, Anthony Joseph Neary, union secretary, who seeks £lO,OOO damages from Walsh and a total of £3500 from the vice-president and six members of the management committee of the Wellington Trades Council. Walsh spent three hours in the witness-box today, the fifth day of the hearing. The cross-examination of Walsh has not yet begun.

The case is being heard by Mr Justice McGregor and a jury of 12. Mr J. H. Dunn appears for Neary and Mr E. D. Blundell, with him Mr L. M. Greig, for all the defendants.

Walsh is the principal defendant. The seven others are Francis Leslie Fenton, union secretary and vice-president of the Wellington Trades Council; Daniel MacLeod, union secretary; Frederick Alexander Miles, organiser; Albert Wathey, union official; James Herlihy, union secretary; Edward George Thompson, union organiser; and Mrs Nan Clark, union secretary.

Neary, secretary of the North Island Electrical Workers’ Union, claims that in consequence of a document falsely and maliciously published or caused to be published by the defendants, he had been seriously injured in character, reputation and in his employment. He alleges the document accused him of perjury when giving evidence in a libel claim against the “People’s Voice.”

Mrs Clark said the document complained ( of was cyclostyled in her office and about 150 copies were made.

Mr Dunn: • What did you do with them?

Mrs Clark: I gave them to Walsh.

Were they done up in a newspaper parcel?—Yes. Did you keep some out of the parcel?—No. Oh yes, some for the management committee and a parcel for the trades council meeting. At the management committee meetings how many copies were produced?—There were 12 members of the committee. I would have had 12. I put it to you that the management committee members didn’t know this was a massproduced document? —Oh yes, they would. It was cyclostyled and, it would be taken tor granted that the trades council meeting would have copies of a matter of this importance. Did you make any comments at the meeting about the preparation of the report?—No. Did any member ask for further information on any point?—Not that I recall. There was only an hour, and this and the notes of evidence take a fair while to read. Then Walsh made some additional remarks? —In a general way. z Did anyone say anything else? —Not that I remember. Not “Yes-Men” That agrees with my original suggestion that they were all yes-men?—No. Agreeing with a report does not make you a “yes-man.” J Did Walsh point out this was an accusation of perjury against Neary?—No. Did he point out it was an accusation of any sort agasnst Neary?—We weren’t making accusations against Neary, we were commenting on the effects of Neary’s remarks on our officers. We didn’t regard it as an attack on Neary. Do you seriously say that?— Very seriously. Didn’t you regard it as an attack on Newbury and Solomon? —We did not. Hos£ did the evidence that Newbury gave attack your positions?—These sections that are commented on which are not directly attacking the position ox Walsh and Fenton were included to cover the whole situation in one document. When Neary spoke at the Trades Council meeting didn’t he emphatically deny these allegations?—The allegations. He did not deny the statements. Didn’t he deny he had given false evidence?—Yes. Second Edition Mrs Clark said she subsequently produced another edition of the report at least a week after the meeting. It was not produced at the request of Walsh. The last page was typed xgain with the signatures on. Fifty copies were run off. Mr Dunn: After you received a letter written on behalf-of Neary you formed a committee of those who had been threatened with writs?

Mrs Clark: Yes. A week or two after. In addition, you were appointed secretary of that committee? —Yes. Did that committee bring a recommendation before the Trades Council that it should bear the expenses incurred in these proceedings?—Yes. Wasn't that brought before the council at a meeting presided over by Fenton?—Yes. Mrs Clark said that at the meeting, Butler first said that the matter was out of order as the action was to come before the Court and was sub judice. Allen moved they proceed to the next business and the council agreed. At the next monthly meeting, Walsh was again present. He explained to tfie council that as it had adopted the report, the council, and not the management committee, was responsible for it. Mr Dunn then referred Mrs Clark to the minutes of the August meeting of the council

when Butler moved that the matter was the private affair of those concerned, and not the responsibility of the council. A number of unions subsequently disputed the council’s action.

Mr Dunn: So it was put to the trades council that all these matters were its responsibility and not the defendants? Mrs Clark: Yes.

Was that after you had had another look at your report?—That was after the second writ had been issued against Walsh. And had you all, at that stage, had another look at vhat you had said?—No. ' Had you got cold feet about your allegations when this was put to the trades council?—We had not. Why did you do the composition of the report?—Walsh asked me. When this thing came before the management committee meeting, wasn’t it a complete surprise to the secretary?—lt tnay have been and to one or two others. Resignations When this resignation was presented to the trades council, neither Neale nor Warner nor Thompson knew they had resigned?—Warner was overseas. The only ones who resigned were those who signed the report, so if Walsh stated in the Arbitration Court next day that the whole committee had resigned and were re-elected en bloc, that would not be right?—Perhaps

not. It is a technical point It would not be quite right would it? —Maybe not. Do you feel proud of your part in this matter?—l am not ashamed of it. Re-examined by Mr Blundell, Mrs Clark gave an account of events leading up to the final resolution of the council about the costs of the action. Walsh reported at a council meeting that he had been served with a writ on behalf of Solomon. Molineaux moved the motion. Walsh, as chairman, was merely bringing forward the motion which was carried. Counsel In Box -Frank Hayden Haigh, solicitor, of Auckland, said he was one of the counsel appearing for the defendants in the action brought by Neary against the “People’s Voice.” It was his custom when listening to the evidence of a witness to make his own notes. Neary was the first witness called and during the course of his evidence-in-chief, he made some reference to differences of opinion in the trade union movement. Haigh produced his notes of the evidence. He said Neary had said there was an alignment of parties. His Honour: Are you trying to give the exact words used, or just your impression of the general effect? Haigh: I have the word “alignment” in my actual notes. His Honour: Might you have paraphrased matters? Haigh: That may be so. I can’t be sure that word was used. But these portions of my notes are heavily underlined and scored. “Neary went on, to say there were two sets of candidates, and he was in the set that was advocating a wage order,” said Haigh. “The leaders of that set were Allen and himself and the opponents—those against the wage order —were Walsh and Fenton.”

Mr Blundell: As far as your recollection goes, is there any doubt in your own mind that that is the impression the witness conveyed to you. Haigh: I have no doubt about that. When Haigh produced the Judge’s notes of evidence in the “People’s Voice" case, Mr Dunn objected. Mr Blundell said 'he agreed that was a difficult and vexed question, but Neary had already been examined on the notes and did not dispute that his words had been correctly recorded. His Honour said the matter was concerning him as he understood such notes were the personal property of the Judge. Mr Dunn said he had seen Mr Justice McCarthy about it. His Honour: I don’t think you

should say what my brother Judge said. \ Mr Dunn said that, sightly or wrongly, the defendants had got hold of the notes, and were it not for that he would submit they should not be produced. They had been dragged into the case, and referred to in the report complained of. But it was quite another matter that the notes be produced as to evidence of what Neary or anyone else said. On the suggestion of his Honour, the notes were put in, by consent, as a record taken by the Judge's associate, and without prejudice to the accuracy of the record.

In reply to Mr Blundell, Haigh said that before conducting his case he had not been in communication with Walsh or any member of the management committee seeking assistance in preparation of the defence.

On the morning after the first day of the case, Haigh said, Walsh telephoned him at his hotel. He was bubbling over with indignation at press reports of statements made by Neary in the witness box regarding Walsh’s attitude to the wage order. Work For'Communists Mr Dunn: Rightly or wrongly, you have the general reputation of being the Communist Party solicitor? Haigh: I don’t know what you mean by wrightly or wrongly. I don’t thing there is anything right or wrong about it. Ido work for the Communist Party in Auckland. ‘ You say that on the morning of the second day of the'hearing. Walsh rang you and complained that Neary’s evidence was untrue?—Correct. Did he use the word “perjury?”—Oh, I don’t recollect. Did he use pretty strong language?—He was very indignant. Did he say Neary was a rat?— No. Haigh said he could not be definite about the actual phrasing, but Walsh left him in no doubt about how he felt. Haigh said Walsh wanted to give evidence to clear his name, but Haigh had closed his case. The position in the case was that his clients had libelled Neary and when the writ was issued they admitted it. They published an apology within \a week or a fortnight of receiving a letter. The apology was not considered sufficient and the action proceeded. “Evidence Justified” Mr Dunn: Would you look at your notes again. Is there one word in them to justify your evidence that Neary stated that Walsh and Fenton were opposed to a general wage order? Haigh: Yes, I think so. Your notes don’t say any more than ‘‘opponents Walsh and Fenton.” You now say that meant the opponents of the wage order were Walsh and Fenton?—Yes.

Did you tell Walsh you would give him the notes of evidence?— Yes, I did at some later stage. David Stewart Beattie, barrister, of Auckland, said he appeared as counsel for two of the defendants in the “People's Voice” case. He produced notes he took of Neary’s evidence. He said his impression of that evidence was that Allen and Neary supported, a wage order, but that Walsh and Fenton on the other side were not for it. Mr Dunn: Would you agree that when Neary got to the words “undignified manner” the Judge stoped him? Beattie: That I cannot remember. You remember whether he was then asked whether there were two sets of candidates?—l cannot remember. Walsh’s Evidence Walsh entered the witness box shortly before the luncheon adjournment. He said he was a company director, president of the Federation of Labour, the Wellington Trades Council, the Seamen’s Union and the Clerical Workers’ Union, and secretary of the Wellington Confectioners’ Union and of the Fish Workers' Union. Walsh said he was paid a salary by the Seamen’s Union, but received no honoraria or other payments in respect of other trade union offices he held, except that he was paid expenses when he travelled on business for those organisations. He said he was an original executive member of the Federation of Labour, became vice-presi-dent in 1946, -was defeated in 1947, but was re-elected in 1948. He was elected president in 1952 and had held that office since. Each year he had to submit to an, election by secret ballot. He had also served as chairman of a number of public committees since the end of the war and during the war was a member of the Stabilisation Commission. Walsh said he presided at the federation conference in April. 1958. Neary was timekeeper on that occasion and would sit quite close to him. Walsh said that at that time, he and Neary were on extremely friendly terms. Before then,

Neary had sought his assistance and Walsh handled several disputes for him. Walsh said it was customary for him to read his presidential address at the federation conference. This ranged over a wide range of topics on matters that had been occurring. He always took the opportunity to make an economic syrvey of events

Walsh included in that report reference to the subject of a general wage claim. Such applications were made under the Economic Stabilisation Regulations. For some time, an application had been made every 12 months. At the time he was concerned with, for some time before 1958, a claim would be made every six months. The regulations specified a variety of matters, the principal one being the consumers’ price index, the Government Statistician’s prepared and published with his quarterly reports. At the 1958 conference, Walsh said, he put in his report and his views regarding a wage order. His conclusions were based on the price . index. Workers had received increases by individual direct negotiations with their conciliation councils. Walsh said he also had in mind the position of the country, particularly in relation to the balance of payments and receipts at that time. Walsh said that, to his mind, a wage order application would not have succeeded at that time. Propaganda Walsh said the Communist Party’s statement in the press at that time about a wage order was. to his mind, quite unrelated to fact. The Communists were putting forward propaganda to endeavour to build up dissatisfaction in the trade union movement: falsely, on the grounds that the federation had justification for filing a wage order. At all conferences, Walsh said, he had been a convener of the policy committee which dealt with remits that concerned foreign policy an’d the policy of the’ federation. There had been a very wide division of opinion on such matters because the federation was affiliated with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. The Communist Party, on the other hand, supported the World Federation of Trade Unions. At every conference, the policy set out by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions was reaffirmed. Mr Blundell: Do you deny the assertion of Neary that-you have been friendly with the Communists? Walsh: My policy concerning communism has not changed one iota. You deny that statement, then? —I do. Walsh said that he had appeared on all applications for a wage order since 1950. He stated that it was competent for any union to make a wage application. That statement had been repeatedly made by the Judge of the Arbitration Court. Views Unchanged Walsh denied that there had been any change in his viewpoint in respect of a wage claim before the Budget, but as a result of the effect the Budget would have on the consumers’ price index he changed his view after the Budget was brought down. He prepared a report for the Federation of Labour to the effect that there seemed to be no question that the Budget made it necessary to apply for a wage increase “in the very near future.” The report was subsequently unanimously approved by the federation. The effect of the report was to show to delegates attending the national conference the effects on wage and salary earners of the Budget, “particularly in relation to the indirect taxation on private motoring, petrol, tobacco, and beer.” Walsh estimated that the effects of increases on those three items alone would increase the price index by 4 per cent. The correct figure subsequently announced was 3.8 per cent. These effects, plus the possible shortages of goods due to import control that would raise the price index 7 per cent, by the end of September, would justify the filing of a claim for a general order, he said.

His report was also read to the July r eeting of the Wellington Trades Council, and was approved without any expression of dissension. It was a very orderly meeting, but a newspaper report next day described a “bitter attack” on the Budget by Walsh. He then took pa.t in seeing that a reply denying an attack on the Labour Government, appeared in the newspaper of the following day. Mr Blundell:, By that time, July 24 or 25. did your organisations of the Federation of Labour or trades council criticise your criticisms of the Budget? Walsh: Yes. There were comments by the Gisborne Trades Council.

Walsh said over the years he had considered it fundamental in the making of general orders that

any increase given should be incorporated in basic rates.

Referring to a division in the Trades Council, Walsh said: “The genesis of the opposition to me developed immediately after my criticism of the Budget. Their viewpoint was that the policy I was advocating, and which had been adopted by the Federation of Labour, pressing -for the filing of an application jn due course, was detrimental to the interests of the Government.”

Walsh said that in October, 1958. he supported the- filing of a claim, provided the Government, would agree to the amendment of the Stabilisation Regulations empowering the Arbitration Court *.o incorporate the 18 per cent, wage order in the basic rates. Walsh agreed with his Honour that his attitude could be summed up that an application should be filed, but delayed till the time was appropriate. At the October meeting of the Wellington Trades Council, Walsh, while speaking on the annual report- expressed t)ie position of the national executive with regard to filing an application. A resolution was proposed by Southward, of the Watersiders’ Union, that the delegate to the national council be directed to press for immediate filing of an application. This was seconded by Neary, but withdrawn when an amendment was put and carried. Mr Blundell: What was your reaction when Neary seconded the resolution?

lyalsh: You could have knocked me down with a feather. Walsh denied that he saw a copy of the “People’s Voice” at the October meeting -when the elections were held. Before voting took place Walsh said he thought he would get a minimum of 100 votes. “I made a mistake—got 99.”

Mr Blundell: At that time would it be known in the movement that Neary was opposed to you? Walsh: That was the issue. That group was opposed to me. Butler’s Criticism

Referring to a meeting of the trades council in November, 1958, Walsh said Butler made some violent criticisms. He accused Walsh of bringing in a member of the seamen’s organisation and the agent at Lyttelton to represent seamen at the meeting when elections were held.

Mr Bliindell: Did you resent the implications against you? Walsh: I strongly resented them. “At that meeting, Neary did a lot of interjecting while I was speaking, and while other members were speaking in defence of what they had done,” said Walsh. "I repeatedly asked him to resume his seat and to stop interrupting speakers when they were on their feet.”

Mr Blundell: From that stage through to February and March, was the division within the ranks accentuated because of troubles In the elections and press leakages? Walsh: Particularly over press leakages that were being published in “Truth.” Mr Blundell: In general, were these articles favourable to yourself? Walsh: Very unfavourable and untrue. Walsh said that in all discussions over press leakages, Neary and Butler were on the side in defence of saying there was no proof of leakages. Mr Blundell: Were you blaming anyone for the press leakages? Walsh: Yes, we had evidence. Walsh said the secretary, Scott, had said he knew the person who was giving information to “Truth,’’ but declined to name him. Mr Blundell: Over all this period, Neary was in the camp against you? Walsh: Very strongly. He defended Scott’s attitude, to which I was opposed. Effect Of Reports Walsh said the first he knew of Neary.’s evidence in the “People's Voice” action was when

he read the “Evening Post” report. From that and a report in “Truth,” he gained “a. clear inference” that he (Walsh) and Fenton were opposed to filing an application for a wage order. “I had already filed an application in the name of the Clerical Workers’ Union in the Court for a general order and felt that statement placed me in a very false position,” said Walsh. H was not in the least concerned about Neary’s reference to wanting a change in leadership. “I felt that something should be done to rectify the matter.” said Walsh. He consulted members of the national executive of the Federation of Labour, and, with the exception of Butler, they all expressed grave concern over “this false statement” concerning Walsh. The management committee of the Trades Council expressed the same concern.

On examining the two newspaper reports, Walsh found that they did not coincide, and took immediate steps to obtain a copy of the notes of evidence. Walsh said he asked the secretary of the Drivers’ Union if he could obtain a copy of the notes of evidence. The members of the manage-

ment committee were gravely concerned because the evidence had placed Walsh in a false position and because the statements made were definitely untrue. Walsh said that on seeing the notes of evidence he saw nothing to change his view that Neary had said he and Fenton were opposed to a wage claim.

Walsh said he considered action would have to be taken as the matter was too serious to bring before the council on a verbal or individual basis.

Mr Blundell: Were you concerned to take any opportunity this may afford to deal a blow at Neary? Walsh: None whatsoever, not personally. All I was concerned about was to clear my own name and my fellow executives. Walsh said he rang Mrs and asked her to check the words and prepare a report, since he himself was to be engaged in the Arbitration Court. Changed Report Later he saw a draft of the report and made two suggestions—that she should take extracts from the 1959 F.O.L. report “which would show that Neary was not advocating an application for a general wage order from May” and to leave out all reference to the Electrical Workers’ Union. He also advised her ‘to keep strictly to the. notes of evidence, and asked her to get in touch with as many committee members as possible. Mr Blundell: That was the only part you played in the preparation of this document? Walsh: Yes. He made no suggestion as to how many copies should be taken of the report. Walsh described how the management committee members were satisfied with the report and signed it. He did not induce them to sign. Some of those who signed had opposed him strenuously on previous occasions.

He outlined proceedings at the trades council and how he moved the adoption of the report. An amendment by Butler, tb refer it back for further consideration by the committee, was later withdrawn.

After there had been a number of speakers, Neary then came to the front—“l did not put the clock on him,” said Walsh—and spoke very heatedly. “He spoke in a rage, but at no time did he deny the truth of the reported statement that he was in a group, along with Allen, who were advocating a wage claim and that I was in the opposition group, with Fenton,” said Walsh. “He said the evidence he gave in the Court was God’s truth.” Walsh said he replied to criticism of the report, and read from his copy of the notes of evidence. At one point, Neary said a portion had been missed. Quotation Omitted “My report was that the portion I had missed had not affected the statements contained in the report,” said Walsh. Walsh claimed that quotations omitted from the notes of evidence in preparing the report did not alter the meaning of the report. Mr Blundell: While you were reading the report to the meeting, did Neary take exception to the part referring to two opposing sets? Walsh: No, sir. If Neary claimed that there was anything not correctly reported in the notes of evidence, would you have done something about it?—l certainly would have. Until you heard Neary’s evidence in this case, were you aware of the explanation or interpretation he places on these words we are discussing?—No, sir. The Court then adjourned till Monday morning.