Court opens hearing into Enna G dispute

Press, 3 June 1982, Page 7

Court opens hearing into Enna G dispute

PA Wellington Nine years after Wellington waterfront unions put a black ban on the Nauruan vessel Enna G in support of its Fijian crew, the High Court has started hearing a $318,620 claim for damages against the unions and officials concerned.

The case is expected to last several weeks.

Mr R. W. Edgley, Q.C., told the Court that evidence would be called on behalf of the Nauru Local Government Council that Fijian seamen were "very keen indeed” to work on Nauruan ships and were paid much more than they could have received in a Fijian vessel.

Mr Edgley was giving his opening address in the action in which the council claims $218,620 special damages and general damages of $lOO,OOO against several unions and officials.

The hearing is before Mr Justice Ongley sitting alone, and the New Zealand Seamen's Union is first defendant.

William Martin, formerly president of the Seamen’s Union, and James Woods, secretary of the Wellington branch of the union, are second defendants.

The Wellington Amalgamated Watersiders’ Union is third defendant. Named as fourth defendants are James William Milne, of Titahi Bay, Wellington, president of the Watersiders’ Union, and lan Crawford Smith, of Wellington. vice-president of that union.

The New Zealand Harbour Board Employees’ Union is fifth defendant. Sixth defendants are Hamilton Thompson, of Wainuiomata, president of the Harbour Board Employees’ Union, and Gerard Geraghty of Wellington, secretary of that union.

Seventh defendant is Yvonne Grove, of Wellington, married woman, as executrix of the will of Tobias (Toby) McClinchey Hill, late of Wellington, union officer.

In its statement of claim the Nauru Government Council alleges that in May, 1973, there was a conspiracy among the defendant unions to interfere with the council's lawful trade and economic business by placing a black ban on the Enna G.

The council also alleges an unlawful conspiracy to induce the 23 Fijian members of the crew to break their contracts of service.

Mr Edgley said Nauru was a small and isolated central Pacific island. In 1973 a conference between Nauru and. Tonga decided , to set up a service to the islands that would replace the ship Tufua. Letters were written from Tonga to the Union Steam Ship Company and to Mr

Martin, then president of the New Zealand Seamen’s Union and second defendant in the case.

They discussed the proposal with the Union Steam Ship Company, and the company said it had no objection but would give them stiff opposition. A delegation from Nauru and the secretary of the government in Tonga, Mr Tufui, went to Auckland and saw Mr Martin. He was not enthusiastic about the project, but when asked whether he had any conditions to be laid down by his union, Mr Martin would not commit himself.

Mr Edgley said that Mr Martin had plenty of time to consider the matter. He said Mr Martin .had merely said that Mr T. E. Skinner, president of the Federation of Labour, might have some ideas.

. “Mr Tufui got in touch with him, and he said it was up to Mr Martin,” Mr Edgley said. “Mr Tufui also got in

touch with the watersiders and they seemed on the whole quite happy about it because they said it would give them more work. “Accordingly, these Island people proposing to start a new service had, in my submission, taken sensible precautionary steps to find out what the position would be in New Zealand, and they at least hadn’t been given the slightest indication that if they came here the ship would be blacklisted and held under duress for several months, that they wouldn’t be allowed to take it awav."

Mr Edgley said that after the visit the delegation returned to Melbourne and decided that it would be all right to start the venture, which was to begin about June 1.1973, from Auckland. Before the venture was started it was decided that Nauru was to bear the expenses for six to 12 months and take the profits, but after that, or within that

time, Tonga would come in too, and there was always the possibility of other Pacific Island countries also going into the proposal. The Enna G had gone on a voyage from Brisbane to Noumea and Fiji and Western Samoa, and arrangements had been made that it dry dock at Auckland. But a naval ship required the floating dock at Auckland. Accordingly, at short notice, the Enna G was diverted to Wellington. As a' result, it was intended only that the ship should dry dock at Wellington. There was never any intention that a stick of cargo or one passenger should be taken on at Wellington. The" ship was to sail in ballast from Wellington to Auckland. “Meanwhile it was clear the unions were active,’’ Mr Edgley said. “However, it wasn't till May 31 that a certain form of activity took place." “On May 31, Mr Martin, president of the Seamen’s

Union, wrote a letter to Mr (W. J.) Knox, who was then secretary of the Federation of Labour, about the Enna G which, of course, had been lying in Wellington for about a week then."

Mr Edgley said that Mr Martin made it perfectly clear that his union had no objection to the Enna G's carrying passengers, which was one of the services it proposed to provide. "Assuming, but not admitting in the least, that the Seamen's Union might have had some right to present cargo being loaded and carried, on their own admission they had no justification whatever for preventing the Enna G carrying passengers.” Mr Edgley said. "Let us suppose they did have some right about cargo. They had no right, in my submission, to hold the ship in Wellington. It wasn't loading cargo there. "The most they could possibly have done was to wait till it got to Auckland and then take what action they could to stop cargo being loaded but not to prevent passengers being taken aboard. Meanwhile the Sea-' men’s Union had taken action. We understand it was on May 31. possibly before, that they put a black ban on the vessel."

Mr Edgley said that evidence would be given about Mr Martin’s being down at the ship and talking to the crew. Mr Brown, projects manager of the Nauru Pacific Line, was notified of the black ban on the ship. He accordingly went to Mr Martin's office and wanted to

know what the trouble was. .Mr Martin had presented him with a handwritten missive which referred to "verminous. rat infestation, and cockroaches with saddles” in the sailors' quarters. Mr Edgley said that Mr Martin was told the Enna G had a recent "deratting" certificate and that while in the floating dock on May 30 and May 31 it had been attended to for rats and cockroaches by Pest Control Services, Ltd.

Mr Martin was told that he knew the Health Department had passed and thoroughly approved the state of the ship.

"However. Mr Martin said he was not going to take any notice of those 'phony officials.' that they had to have the ship cyanide-fumi-gated.” Mr Edgley said. He said the Nauruans were understandably taken aback by this. But Mr Brown believed that Mr Martin obviously was out to be disapproving of many aspects of the Enna G — he had mentioned the pay of the Fijian seamen and other matters pertaining to them — that if the ship had the cyanide fumigation done it would be allowed to sail to Auckland.

“Accordingly the crew was billeted ashore, the police and the ambulance and everyone else was notified and this quite unnecessary fumigation was done," Mr Edgley said. “There was some difficulty because Queen's Birthday week-end came, but on June 5 it was attended to. It was announced that the vessel would sail on June 6. On that

day. however, when attempts were made to get the vessel moving the crew refused to take her to sea, and it was unable to sail."

Mr Brown would say that he telephoned Mr Martin and protested strongly, and reminded him that tie had been told that when the fumigation was attended to the ship would be free to sail. "Mr Martin, Mr Brown will say. didn't deny this, but said, ’you don’t fire off all your barrels at the same time.' and said he had told the Fijian seamen not to sail." Mr Edgley said. “Thereafter matters progressed. or more accurately, regressed. The unions mentioned- in these proceedings formed a solid front.”

Mr Edgley said the ship was blacklisted. The unions proceeded to raise money. Mr Martin, as president of the Seamen's Union, gave successive undertakings that his union would be responsible for the maintenance and accommodation of the 25 crew members.

Meanwhile, attempts were made to discuss the situation with a body that turned out to be the combined ports committee, consisting in the main of the unions, and Mr Hill as chairman.

Mr Edgley said that Mr Martin had insisted throughout that he was the spokesman for the Fijian seamen. The Nauru people were not allowed to deal with them.

“One must acknowledge, of course, that unions are entitled to look after their people and that they have done very praiseworthy things which have actually

benefited their members and probably the community generally," Mr Edgley said. “But circumstances are always different, and here they were dealing with an island people who were proposing to run a service to countries which had an economy entirely different from ’ New Zealand's, and where it was necessary to-cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth.

"The evidence will be, of course, that Fijian seamen were very keen indeed to get jobs on Nauru vessels. They were paid substantially more than they could ever get on a Fijian vessel. But Mr Martin's attitude was that he was helping ' his poor Fijian brothers, who were suffering conditions of terrible exploitation.

“The unions were prepared to be very ruthless about this matter. I mention it to show that although I realise he is dead. Mr Hill had no hesitation in saying the ship could rot at the bottom of the harbour if they didn’t comply with the terms. "The unions continued to negotiate, but the Nauruans, who, as I said before, are a proud, independent people, in the end turned and they refused to comply with the demands. They refused to take back the Fijian seamen upon the terms which were demanded of them by the union," Mr Edgley said. The plaintiff was simply claiming expenses to which it was put, comprising $218,620, and making a claim for general damages of $lOO,OOO, which was to pro-» vide compensation for loss of business.