UNION NONSUITED

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 157, 21 March 1923, Page 5

UNION NONSUITED

FAILURE TO PRODUCE A RESOLUTION / ECHO OF SHIPPING TROUBLE MR. YOUNG IN THE BOX On the ground that it had failed to produce a resolution passed at a mooting of members, authorising tho bringing of an action for enforcement, the New Zealand Federated Seamen’s Union was yesterday nonsuited in a claim for a penalty of £lO from two coastal shipping companies for an alleged breach of the award. The defendants in the case, which was heard before Mr. AV. G. Riddell, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, were the Coastal Shipping Company and Richardson and Company, and the breaches of the award were alleged to concern a reduction in the deck manning of the former company’s Kapiti, and the latter’s Ruru, Koutunui, Kiritona, and Koau. Mr. AV. T. Young (secretary) appeared, for the union, and Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson for the defendants. It was alleged that on November last the deck manning on the coastal steamKapiti consisted of one leading able seaman, and four able seamen, ana that some days later it was reduced to one lamp-trimmer and able seaman, three able seamen, and one ordinary seaman. This, contended Mr. Young, was contrary to tho provisions of clause 37 of the award, which provided that no alteration should be made in the manning of the ship, except through the machinery laid down. in the clause. “I don’t know,” 'said Mr. Young, “whether the other side intcndto argue that the award ceased as the union went on strike, but 1 say there is no tittle of evidence that the union has been on strike, and until it is proved that it committed a strike it is quite innocent of tho act.” Mr. Young submitted that tho judgment in the case of the Greymouth AA'atersiders’ Union in 1913 had little or no bearing on the case before tho Court, since if it had, on seamen’s award existed at the present moment. He was arguing along these lines in anticipation — His Worship: Instead of arguing in anticipation, why not wait until you hear the defence ? Then you have tho right of reply. What is the use of speaking at random? You will,be on surer ground if you wait Until you hear the argument for the defence. Mr. Young: That will do me all right, than you, Your "Worship, I submit thaf there was a clear breach of the award.

Mr. Young added that he did not propose to call any evidence, but intended to hand in the correspondence concerning the matter. His Worship; You must put it in in the (toper way. Air. Young: I’ll put it in myself. . witness was subjected to a, lengthy cross examination.

Mr. Stevenson: Do you remember saying at one meeting with the employers that the men had shown great resentment of the award? —Mr. Young: “No. What are you quoting from ? I may have used words something like that.” Do you remember stating that there was a general feeling among tho men to down tools on all the ships?— “There was no sliorthand note taken on that .occasion,”

Was any meeting of the stamen held in 'Wellington in November? —“Yes.” Was it hold while the work was going on?—“Yes.”

Li that not a stop-work meeting, then-?—“No.”

Do you know that after the meeting tho men returned to the ships mid gave 24 hours’ notice?—“l can’t say.” Will you swear that thev did?—“l don’t know what they did.” Were vou tliere?—“Yes.” Did they pass any resolution ? — “No.”

What agreement was come to?— “They did not pass any resolution.”

Did thev come to any agreement about giving notice on shins? —“No.” What was discussed nt the meeting? —“Oh, general matters.” I want to know, Mr. Young, what those matters were: “Various matters, such as correspondence and general business.’” , I want to know what they were. — “I did not keep nuidh in my head afterwards.”

It was a very important meeting?— “We had this' before in another Court.”

How many were present? —“A counle of hundred.”

Was the question of the award discussed? —“It might have been mentioned, but it was not discussed.” Can you explain why notice was <riven?—“l can’t say.” Do you know that it was? —“I have been told that it was.” Do you seriously say that at this congregation of men the question of working or not working under tho award was not discussed ? —'u have already told -you that.” Well. I must accept your word. , . a meeting with tho employers do you recollect saying: “I am* not speaking for tho executive but for the whole 6rganisation’ T correct.” . ,

Do you know from your position as secretary of the union that, as the vessels came into nort the men left them? —“I believed they did; that they exercised their legal rights.” During November and December and the part of January during the trouble did vour union pay any strike pay?—“There was no strike nay.’ What, did you nay, Mr. Young?— “I paid out a. little in relief. It was not strike pay.” How much?—‘‘l can’t say: I never counted it up.” . Well, did it run into £6000?— I can’t say. It might have been.” Something in the vicinity ot ibOUt). then?—“lt might have been. I never went into it that closely.” Could vou obtain your pass-book and let me know?—"Tho book is the private property of the organisation and not public propertv, but if His Worship wants it, it could be shown 'him confidentially.” .. His Worship: You paid amounts out? —"They were, paid out at. union offices nt ‘each place by relief committees.” _ , ~ , r Answering further questions, Mr. Young said lie estimated the membership of the union to be approximately 330'0. , , , .. Mr. Stevenson asked for a nonsuit on the grounds that there 'had been no proof of a reduction in the manning and that Mr. Young had produced no resolution authorising him to bring the action. Mr. Young said that the evidence of reduction was contained in the correspondence. The union had passed

the resolution relative to the enforcement, and this could be produced. His Worship (to Mr. Stevenson): Will vou consent to an adjournment so that the resolution may bo produced or will you stand on the nonsuit?

Mr. Stevenson: We have been put to a deal of expense and I propose to stand on the nonsuit. Tn the absence of proof of the resol”‘ion the Bench nonsuited the plaintiff. z '■* ifr. Young observed that he would simple file again. Costs £1 Is., were allowed in each case.