SEAMAN'S CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 13, 15 July 1936, Page 13

SEAMAN'S CLAIM

ALLEGED LIBEL

EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT

The hearing of the claim of Douglas Gibson, a member of the Seamen's Union, for £600 damages for alleged libel against Fintan Patrick Walsh and Felix Newfield, officials of the union, was continued today, before his Honour Mr. Justice Blair. Mr. L. K. Wilson and Mr. lan Macarthur appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. P. Hay for the defendants. On the resumption of the hearing today, in the course of re-examination by Mr. L. K. Wilson, the plaintiff said he was still nominally a member of the Seamen's Union, but as a result of the action he had complained of he had not succeeded in getting work on a ship. His Honour (to plaintiff): You have not been able to get a job?—That is so, except on a. fishing trawler. His Honour: Suppose a man is pushed on the union when they do not want him —is that your position? —Something near that. His Honour:. You would be looked upon with' disfavour by certain, members of the union. It would make it unpleasant to the officers of the ship to have you on the vessel? —Yes. What actually happens, if you are in the union? —I might get a job on a ship where my friends are, and I could remain; but if I got a job on a ship where the majority supported my expulsion the position would be that I could not remain. Xhey would tell the master or the engineer of the ship that they would not sail with me. Then that means that you are out of employment?—-Yes, sir. I want to know the position in this case —where a man's livelihood depends upon it. Mr. Hay: It is "a matter of common knowledge that when a man gets offside with a body of men, they try to get level with him. I am not afraid to meet the allegations in this case. His Honour: I want to know the position. The plaintiff says that once a man is persona ingrata he is unable to get employment—that the fact that a man has got a declaration from'the Court that he has been wrongly expelled is not sufficient, and may practically be disregarded. Mr. Hay said that many of the circumstances in the present case were related to legal proceedings in a previous case. Plaintiff: I was expelled from the union and could not get work. The Supreme Court had declared me to be a member of the union. His Honour: What is the position? They tell the master or engineer of ■the ship that they will not work with you?—Yes. For what reason?—They say they regard me as a disruptive person in the union, and that I may cause trouble, and break up the union, or something like that. His Honour: What occurred on the Orepuki?—The men on the Orepuki at first decided not to sail with me; then they reversed their decision and decided to sail. Then the master of^the ship came down to the fo'c'sle, and the men said they had been, in touch with Walsh, who was coming down to the ship, but Walsh did not come down.

The plaintiff told his Honour that the only job he had had was on a fishing trawler. ■ • • ,

In reply to his Honour, Mr. Hay said the union could go to a certain extent in seeing that its members carried out the rules, but there were limits.

His Honour: Suppose a majority of the union decide that a ship must be taken to sea, and the men will not do it, what happens? Suppose the executive say to the men that their course of action is detrimental to the interests of the union, why are steps not taken? Mr. Hay: It is a very easy matter to say why not deal with them. There is the power of individual members of the union to precipitates strike. His Honour: I think the union could do something. . . There are many ways of preventing victimisation. In the case of one ship the men were told that one member of the union was entitled to sail with the vessel. Mr. Hay: What if the men persisted? The rank and file have great power over the officials, and the present case is the result of it. . Ronald Fraser, a seaman, then gave evidence. He said he was a member of the anti-expulsion committee. He heard it said in the union rooms that Gibson had wrecked the Australian Union, and was in the New Zealand Union for the same purpose. Walsh had' said that more than once in the union rooms and at stop-work meetings. The hearing is proceeding. Yesterday's proceedings are reported on page 8.