Hodge case fells

Press, 20 July 1984, Page 1

Hodge case fells

A Timaru journalist employed by “The Press” has lost his case in the Arbitration Court on the new voluntary unionism legislation.

The action resulted from the imposition of a ban on Mr Doug Hodge’s copy by “The Press” journalists’ chapel (union) after he resigned from the New Zealand Journalists’ Union. When the case was heard in the Arbitration Court last week, Mr Hodge claimed $3OOO against the first defendant, the New Zealand (except Northern) Journalists’ Union, $l5OO against the second defendant, Mr Tony Wilton, the secretary of the union, and $l5OO against Ms Karren Beanland, the chapel delegate of the union at “The Press.”

Judge Hom adjourned the case to consider a submission by the defendants’ counsel, Mr John Milligan, that there was no case to answer. Yesterday he gave his ruling that this submission was upheld. Mr Milligan said last evening that the decision

covered three main points. It held that whatever was applied to Mr Hodge was not undue influence either in the form of intimidation or loss or detriment. Neither was there any evidence that any pressure had been put on Mr Hodge to rejoin the union. The third part of the decision related to Mr Milligan’s submission concerning the relevance of the defendants. He said the Court had found that there was no evidence that Mr Wilton or Ms Beanland had anything to do with the matter at all. The decision was that Mr Hodge’s claim failed, and no costs were awarded. “There was a slight suggestion (in the decision) that the legislation may be woefully defective,” said Mr Milligan. “I was confident that whatever the section meant, Hodge’s case didn’t come up to it,” he said. Mr Milligan said that he did not believe the case should be seen as a victory for the unions, but merely

as a successful test of the law relating to one case. Mr Hodge said last evening that his reaction to the decision was “one of disbelief, not necessarily of abject despair.” “Justice, in my opinion, has not been seen to be done because I acted within the full letter of the law,” he said. “I have not yet seen the 12-page telegram sent to my solicitor today but apparently the ban imposed by ‘The Press’ chapel on February 21 is still in force.” Mr Hodge said he would make no decision on further action until he had seen the full text of the decision. Later, Mr Hodge said: “One course open to me is to apply to the High Court for the removal of the ban. But in view of the decision of the Arbitration Court, which I understand disregards the imposition of the ban as it affects me now and upon my retirement next year, I have no alternative but to consider resigning from ‘The Press’.”