Union officials on theft charges

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33067, 7 November 1972, Page 3

Union officials on theft charges

f.Veu’ Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, November 6. Three men and a woman, all former or present officials of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, stole more than $40,200 from the union, it was alleged in the Magistrate’s Court at Auckland today.

William Alexander Orema Dempster, aged 65, a retired union secretary, his wife, Marilyn Anne Dempster, aged 41. John William Sylvester, aged 53, a union president, and James Henry Hill, aged 53, a secretary, appeared at a preliminary hearing.

The taking of depositions on 27 charges of theft, involving $40,206 65c, is expected to take three days. There are 15 charges of theft against Dempster in respect of cheques drawn on a Christchurch bank, involving about $15,200. There are also two charges against him in respect of two cheques drawn on an Auckland bank for a total of $16,295. One of these two charges is an alternative charge of false pretences. Mrs Dempster is jointly charged with her husband in connection with the 15 charges of theft in respect of cheques drawn on the Christchurch bank. Charges against Hill 1 There are 11 charges of theft involving $9600 against Hill. He is charged jointly with Dempster in connection with a cheque drawn on the Christchurch bank, and he is jointly charged with Sylvester in connection with four cheques drawn on an Auckland bank. In addition, there

are six charges of theft (against Hill involving cheques (drawn on an Auckland bank. ( There are six charges of i theft involving a total of ! $5500 against Sylvester. He is jointly charged with j Dempster in connection with I two charges relating to (cheques drawn on the Christ- ! church bank. He is also jointly charged with Hill in (connection with four charges (of theft relating to cheques (drawn on an Auckland bank. I 30min. to read ' It took the clerk of the j court 30 minutes to read the charges relating to the Dempsters and Sylvester before they elected trial by jury; they did not enter a plea. Hill had elected trial by jury at an earlier hearing and enitered no plea. All the accused are on bail during the hearing, which is before Messrs J. R. Weir and H. Brown, Justices of the Peace. The Dempsters, who come from Picton, are represented by Mr B. McClelland, of Christchurch, and Hill, from Takapuna, is represented by Mr R. L. Maclaren. Sylvester is represented by Mr L. W. Brown, Q.C., and with him, Mr S. W. Halstead. Bank cheques Sergeant A. K. Mitchell said the charges concerned cheques drawn on two bank accounts of the union, which drew its membership of about 10,000 from employees of various Government departments. Dempster was the general secretary of the union, and his wife was the head office book-keeper until their retirement in June last year. Hill, who had been the secretary of the Auckland branch, became the general secretary and Sylvester, who was the secretary of the Wellington branch, was appointed president. AH the secretarial positions carried salaries and various allowances.

“The prosecution alleges that the defendants, while authorised to operate certain union bank accounts, abused their positions and drew out cheques to which they were not entitled, and which were used for reasons not in the union’s interests,” said Sergeant Mitchell. “The prosecution alleges the cheques were converted when they were used to pay private bills or lodged in private bank accounts.”

Sergeant Mitchell said it was the practice of signatories to the union’s bank account, who were not directly involved in day-to-day transactions, to pre - sign blank cheques. The alternative charge against Dempster of false pretences involved a cheque Dempster drew for himself when he sold his boat to the union in 1969. The sergeant said the union paid $6400 and the prosecution alleged that at the time the vessel was not worth more than $3OOO. Retirement money Another charge relating to Dempster arose from a cheque made out for $9895, which Dempster received when he retired in lieu of superannuation. The prosecution alleged the superannuation did not amount to half this figure, and that the cheque was written off in the balance sheet as being spent on donations and wreaths.

Sergeant Mitchell said withdrawals from an A.N.Z. Bank account were possible because of sums which had been received by the union from the Ministry of Works in Wellington. The funds were subject to an agreement signed in April, 1970, and should have been spent on a canteen and cookhouse at the New Plymouth power project. The funds, $BOO a month, were allegedly lodged by Mrs Dempster until her retirement and then by Hill and Sylvester to a bank account which was not 'audited. The money was later withdrawn.

■ Sergeant Mitchell said that (because two or three of the .defendants had been charged j with the theft of the same (cheque, it did not mean all had got. the money. ; The prosecution would (prove some had helped I others by making out the cheques, knowing how they ■were going to be used, and signing them, thereby being party to the offences. New cars Two cheques for $3966.46 land $3OOO were used to purchase new cars, registered in Dempster’s name, said the (sergeant. One of them was (sold to the union by Mrs i Dempster. Five cheques totalling i 51773.53 were used to pay for goods delivered to the (Dempsters’ new home in Picton, and two cheques for $lOOO each were lodged by

i Mrs Dempster to the union’s head-office account to cover similar sums advanced from it to her husband.

“Bonuses” alleged Sergeant Mitchell said six cheques totalling $6420 were made out by Mrs Dempster and divided among the three men as alleged bonuses. Four cheques involving I $5500 were put into two private accounts by Sylvester. I Six cheques, involving $5900.66, were used to pay private bills and were put into private accounts. Sergeant Mitchell said Sylvester and Hill had repaid the sums they received, but the Dempsters had not made any compensation, and a total of $21,425.69 was still sought. The Dempsters were now retired, but Hill and Sylvester were still executives of the union. None had been in trouble with the courts before. Contract with union Jack James Chesterman, of iParamata, the chief construction engineer (power) for the Ministry of Works in Wellington, said he had negotiated a contract with the union. The agreement was for the management of a cookhouse, canteen and recreational facilities at a single men’s camp at a New Plymouth power project. He said that normally the Ministry of Works provided a canteen and cookhouse and the men employed a caterer themselves. He produced an agreement between the Ministry of Works and the union dated April 17, 1970, and signed by Dempster on behalf of the union. Mr Chesterman said the Ministry provided the cookhouse and canteen facilities, free power, canteen equipment, furniture and crockery. It maintained the establishment, replaced broken crockery and equipment and provided two three-bedroom houses for contractors nominated by the union. It also paid the union $lOO a week to get a full-time employee for the cookhouse and $lOO a week for contingent expenses which arose from time to time in the cookhouse. A total of $BOO a month was paid to the union by cheque. “No assistance”

Charles Hume Thomas, a caterer, of Rotorua, said he had paid the union a $5OO bond against loss and breakages before he took over as caterer at the New Plymouth project in 1970. He terminated his contract in December, 1970, because money had not been paid to him and he could not reach a satisfactory arrangement with the union. He said that he was not offered any financial assistance by the union and did not know of any financial assistance from the Ministry of Works. James Graham Beaumont, a caterer, of New Plymouth, said he had become caterer at the project on April 27. He said that he did not know the union was being paid $BOO a month by the Ministry of Works to subsidise meals at the camp, and he had paid a $5OO bond before he had begun. Malcolm Evans, a caterer, of New Plymouth, said he had been caterer for the single men’s canteen and cookhouse since June 22 this year. He had also been there for a time in 1970 under contract to the Workers’ .Union. He had never been offered any financial assistance to run the cookhouse and he, not anyone from the union, acted as supervisor.