UNION LEVIES

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 7, 8 July 1922, Page 8

UNION LEVIES

WATERSIDER DECLINES

TO PAY

WAS HE SUBJECT OF, VICTIMISATION?

DEVELOPMENTS IN SMALL CIVIL

ACTION.

Interesting sidelights were thrown on tho inside workings of the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union during the hearing of a civil case at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Counsel for the defence, Mr. G. G. Watspn, made certain suggestions in respect to the victimisation of a member of the union..

The union claimed from William M'Gee, of 87, Hamilton-road, Kilbirnie, a stage curtain, , the property of the plaintiff union, valued at £20 2s 7d, and detained by the defendant from the 28th March, 1918, until 12th April, J. 922. The union had demanded the return of the curtain, .but the defendant had refused, to comply with the demand. Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr. F. H. Haigh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson for the defendant.

James George Bruce, secretary of the Waterside Workers' Union, said a resolution had been passed by the union authorising him to take the present action. In 1918 the defendant, who had been a member of the union, was running a variety show, entertainments being held on Saturday nights in the X waiting store. The union did not receive any of the takings, although the union received certain contributions from defendant's predecessor, Matthews. M'Gee, to his recollection, gave nothing to the union. In February, 1918, he was in a room where a collection was taken up by M'Gee, who handed witness a sum to be used for the purchase of the curtain. Out of this sum, which' amounted to £10 2s, 7d, M'Gee collected sums from witness or the assistant secretary, receipts being given in each instance. Later these receipts were returned to the union by the defendant, and they had been in the union safe since 1918. Witness saw the curtain when it was purchased, and in September, 1918, M'Gee made a request for the loan of the curtain, and it was decided to accede to this if he would take the responsibility for 'the safety of the curtain. The curtain was returned. Other applications were made for tho loan of the curtain, but these were refused. In March of this year witness was notified that the curtain had gone, and a little later, M'Gee called at the office. Witness told the defendant that he had been instructed to write to him to return the curtain to the X store... M'Gee said the curtain was his property. Witness said that that could not be so, as the members of th'_ union had taken up a collection. " No, I paid for it out of my own money," said the defendant. He also denied having taken up a collection • for the curtain, but said he took up a collection during the epidemic. " That was in November," replied the witness. ALLEGATIONS OF VICTIMISATION. ' "Now Mr. M'Gee objected to certain levies in March, 1922?"—" He may have." , "Don't you know that it was so ?"—' "Do I have to answer that question?" Mr. Watson (to the Bench) :"I submit I am entitled to an answer. I want to show that this is a case of victimisation against this man, merely because he did not pay the levies." Mr. Watson: (to the witness),: "What was this levy for, and what amount was it?"-—"The levy was £1.", "Only £I?"—" Yes." "Was it not 24s?"—"No." "What was the purpose of |he levy?" —"I am not going to answer that." Mr. Hunt : "We are here to consider a drop-curtain, not union levies." Mr. Watson :"I am entitled to show that this is a portion of a policy of timisation. It is, a sapient sidelight on this case that Mr. Bruce refuses to answer a question asking what the levy! was for." • Witness : "The levy was for 20s-, and MtJ-ee-refuses to pay it.". "Was not the total you demanded from these men 245, and not £1?"— "No." "Did not all the levies total up to 24s?"—"Yes." "And M'Gee refused to pay these levies?"—"He did." "And, as a result of his action, you took steps to approach the- employers to see that he did not get any work?"— "As far as I know the employers were not informed." "BARRED FROM WORKING" "Do you know that, as a result o_ M'Gee and others refusing to pay this levy, they were barred from obtaining! employment?"—" They may have been." "You know perfectly well that they were, don't you, Mr. "Bruce?"—"l am not going to say that I know perfectly well." "Did not your union tell the Harbour Board that these men would not pay their lpvies?"—"No." "Subsequently you expelled M'Gee from your union?"—"We have done nothing with M'Gee for non-payment of levies. "He is not a member of the union now?"—" No." ■' "Can.you tell us under what rule he was expelled?"—"He did not ahid. by the rules." "Which one?"—No answer". Mr. Hunt: "Come, let's get on. We can take it that he was expelled for disobeying the rules." Mr. Watson: "You decline to tell me what rule he broke?"—"He broke several." "Very well. Apparently there is not to much daylight to be thrown on the reason. M'Gee applied to you for reinstatement?"—" Yes." "And he offered to pay the arrears?" —"Yes." JOINING THE UNION. "What does it cost for a new member to join the union?"—"£2 95." "That's before he can start work?"— "Yes." Mr. Hunt: "Then an ivhemployedi person can't get any work on the wharf until he pays £2 95." Mr. Watson : "£2 95 before Fe can earn his daily bread. When a new man comes along h© is entitled to work as soon as he pays his money?"—" Yes." "But M'Gee had to appeal" before the union before ho oonld work?"—"Oh, no! He was notified two months before that he would havo to appear before the executive." Mr. Watson : "As far as /wharf work was concerned, M'Gee could starve before he appeared before the union." Mr. Watson then produced a number of balance-sheets. These, Mr. Bruce admitted, made no specified reference to the curtain as an asset. He added that there wa6 reference to office furniture. Mr-. Watson : "Surely, the curtain is not part of the furniture. No doubt you have some queer plays down there, but you don't have a drop-curtain." . "HOW BEAUTIFUL!" Witness added that he considered that the curtain became the property of the

union between February and April, 1918. All business of the union was conducted at a general meeting of the union.

Mr. Watson : "What does the executive do?"—"It recommends."

Mr. Watson

"How beautiful!"

Louis Glover, president of the Waterside Workers' Union, also gave evidence on similar lines to that of Mr. Bruce.

Mr. Watson : He said he had never discussed the levy question with M'Gee. Mr. Watson : "Is your memory still good?"—" Excellent."

"Why ■ was M'Gee expelled?"—" Because of the Arbitration Act and the union rules."

"But why?" months in arrears."

•"Well, he was four

"In arrears with his levy?"—" Nothing to do with it at all."

"Did you approach the Harbour Board regarding M'Gee?"—"Yes—Captain Munro."

- "Did you approach the employers or their agents?"—" No."

"Among other things, did .you tell Captain Munro that some one had stolen the union property?"— No. If I had thought that I would have spoken to a policeman." The matter had not been discussed by him at the Disputes Committee.

9t this stage, further hearing was adjourned sine die.