ALLEGED “JOB CONTROL”

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 153, 25 March 1925, Page 10

ALLEGED “JOB CONTROL”

ACTION AGAINST SEAMEN’S UNION HEARING CONCLUDED The hearing of the case in which Ejckford and Co., Ltd., proceeded against the Wellington Local Federated Seamen’s Industrial Union of Workers for £lOO by way of penalty for an alleged breach of clause 48 of the New Zealand Seamen and Firemen’s award, was concluded before Air. C. R. OrrWalker, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Air. J. F. B. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiff, and the union was represented by Air. W. T. Young. Air. W. T. Young, secretary of the union, did not call any wtnesses for the defence, and did not give evidence himself. In addressing the Bench, he contended that even if the union had declared the Opawa “black” it would not constitute “job control.” There was not a tittle of evidence submitted that the union had ordered “job control.” It was a conspicuous fact that neither Burton or Watson had been produced by the plaintiff. Both men had been freely quoted all through the proceedings- He pointed out that both these men gave the requisite notice required by the award before leaving the ship, and since they had left, there had been no union men on board to control the job. Section 48 of the award made a clear distinction between a strike and iob control. Section 8 of the amending Act said that a strike meant the act of employees discontinuing in the service of an employes, and if any ofence had been committed on the Opawa it was one hundred per cent, nearer a sttike than “job control.” The Opawa was an insignificant vessel, and the union took no notice of her, as the majority of the union, members would have nothing to do with the ship.

The plaintiff hid made great complaint about men not offering for employment. The union was a happy family, and news in that family spread quickly. Thev had a statement in writing from the agent of the Opawa stating that no other union men would be employed until the two men ordered off the vessel would rejoin, without the consent of the owners first being obtained. Thi.s information was supplied to members of the union, and it was no wonder that men would not offer for employment; the letter showed that thev were. not wanted. The men preferred to join a ship offering more attractive accommodation. “The whole proceeding is an attempt to switch a case home by inferences of a very weak nature,” continued Air. Young. The Alagistrate: Men have been hanged by inference. Continuing his summing up, Air. Young said that various witnesses had been put in the box to try to prove what Burton was alleged to have said, but Burton had not been called. Mr. Stevenson: It would be a clever man who could get a unionist in the witness box to give evidence against his own union.”

Air. Young then alleged that there was an underlying motive in not calling Burton in the proceedings, and referred to certain alleged tactics of the plaintiff, which lie considered were ,an attempt to trap the union into making an admission of some kind.

At this stage the Alagistrate pointed out to Air. Young that he was in the Court in the capacity of a counsel, and he could not make statements without attempting to substantiate them. “It is unfortunate that you are not going into the witness box to give evidence,” added His Worship. Air. Young: I don’t want to prolong the proceedings by giving evidence, Your Worship.” The Magistrate: If you are not going to give evidence, I do not want you to make statements that you are not prepared to prove.” Air. Young then went on to state that one could draw his own conclusions from the proceedings. He submitted that the action was not only trivial, but vindictive, and the case should be dismissed. Under clause 50 of the award the Opawa was not bound by the award, as its means of propulsion was not solely by means of internal combustion engines. The Alagistrate reserved his decision, but intimated that he might consider it necessary to call evidence to prove the actual t'vpe of vessel the Opawa was.