SEAMAN'S CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 81, 6 April 1933, Page 13

SEAMAN'S CLAIM

LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT

ALLEGED CONSPIRACY

Alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of his employment, John Brown, a seaman, is proceeding at the Magistrate's Court against the Fedoral Seamen's Union, 1\ P. Walsh, president of the union, and twelve membors of the crew of the s.'s. Waihemo with a claim for £250 damages.

The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff, a member of the union and a leading able seaman, had been boatswain of the Waihemo from February 16, 1D32, to September 1, 1932. It was alleged that on August 31, 1932, the defendants conspired to induce the owners of the vessel to discontinue employing the plaintiff' by objecting and refusing to sail on the vessel while the plaintiff was employed on her. It. was further alleged that the union and Walsh were parties to the conspiracy in that they had advised the members of the crew that the plaintiff had worked as a free labourer during a general strike of seamen'in 1921. At a stop work meeting at Lyttelton, it was alleged, the defendants and other persons had conspired to induce shipowners and employers of seamen not to employ or engage the plaintiff as a leading seaman by means of refusing to work or sail on any vessel on which the plaintiff was employed. In consequence of this action, it was stated, the plaintiff had been prevented: from following his occupation and earning his livelihood as a seaman.

Outlining tho case for the plaintiff,. Mr. W. P. Boilings, .said. that, on September (i, 1020, Brown joined the barque Rona and sailed on her to Newcastle. The Rona, a nonunion ship, had just previously been 'declared "black." Brown would give evidence that he was completely ignorant.-of that fact when ho joined and sailed.on the ship. When he returned to New. Zealand he obeyed instructions and left-the ship. Nothing more was heard-of -Brown's alleged "scabbing" until 1931, when he came into conflict with Walsh through raising a question at Auckland as to whether .Walsh himself had not "scabbed" at some stage of his career. When Brown next came to Wellington he was summoned before a committee and asked to apologise for asking the question. Brown refused to apologise, and it was alleged that Walsh had then threatened to pull home out of his ship. It was submitted that since-that time Walsh had been looking for an opportunity to get him-out of his ship. Although it was the men who informed the captain of the Waihemo that they would not sail with Brown, Mr. Rollings submitted that the hand that^brought about the plaintiff's loss of employment was the hand-of Walsh.

When the Waihemo was at Wellington in August, 1932, prior to sailing for Lyttelton, one of the. members of the crew grumbled at being given a certain job by Brown. Two members of the crew called at the union office in connection with the matter. While the vessel was on her way to Lyttelton an argument arose as to whether Brown was on the list of free labourers kept by the union. The.. following day, in response to an inquiry, Walsh Teplied paying that Brown,.was on tho list of free labourers/ After- the reply had been received front Walsh the matter was discussed for two or three hours and the crew decided to go to the master of the Waihemo and inform him that they would not sail with Brown in his capacity as boatswain. Mr. Rollings submitted that the union was iimplicated for the. following reasons; —(1-) It would be proved that Walsh was actuated by malice. ; (2) In 1927. Brown's industrial character .was cleared by the union. (3) The union was "aware of the activities of the crew of the Waihemo at Lyttelton because of the visit paid to the union office at Wellington by two members of the crew. (4) The motion passed at the stop-work meeting was evidence of the union knowledge of the intention to injure Brown. (5) The members of the crew were powerless to act until the union intervened.1 Secondly, Mr. Rollings submitted that the union was liable for keeping and using a "black list" to Brown's detriment. After counsel had submitted legal argument the plaintiff was called to give evidence. ■ (Proceeding.)