PREFERENCE FOR UNIONISTS

Evening Star, Issue 19409, 18 November 1926, Page 6

PREFERENCE FOR UNIONISTS

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD CASE AGAINST ROSS AND GLEKDINIRG A case of considerable interest t« unionists was heard at the Magistrate’s Court before Mr J. R. Bartholomew this morning, the case being that in which the Dunedin Operative Bootmakers’ Industrial Union of Workers proceeded against Ross and Glendining, Ltd., Dunedin, on a claim for £lO as a breach of the Northern, Taranaki, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago, and Southland industrial districts male boot operatives’ award. The particulars of the breach were that the defendant on June 14 engaged Edgar Ralph Bugby (who was not a member of the New Zealand Federated Boot Trade Industrial Association of Workers, or of any affiliated union), contrary to the provisions contained in sub-section (a) of paragraph 1 of the schedule to the award under which preference of employment must be given. After the case for plaintiff had been, heard, the case was adjourned to allow counsel for plaintiff the opportunity of considering the hearing of evidence on commission as to whether men were available in the north to fill the posxtion. , , ~ Mr F, B. Adams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. J. Payne for the defendant. . Mr Adams said that the action had been brought to recover a small penalty for a breach of the preference clause of the award. The facts were that on Juno 11 a man named Maley was dismissed by the defendant not for any defects in his work, hut because he was told there were too many hands on at tho time. He was given a reference by his employers, which showed that there was no fault with his work. On June 14 Bugby, who was not a member of the union, was taken on in the place occupied previously by Maley. Maley had to take other work, and his earnings had been reduced by 5s per week, the net result being that a competent man and a member of the union had lost his position m the trade. The man taken on in Maley s place had applied to become a member of the union, but the application had been refused because the union felt that tho employers had conn*.tted ft breach in employing him in the first place. John Reginald Maley, laborer, said that up to June 11 of this year he had been in the clicking department of defendant’s boot factory. Me was a member of the union, his engagement being terminated because ho was told tho staff was heavy handed. No mention was made of any dissatisfaction with witness’s work, and witness received a reference before he left. Defendant found employment on June lo at Hyman Isaacs's, but be was available to return to Ross and Glendining’s on June 14. Witness left Isaacs’s on June 18, and did nothing for nine weeks, since when he had been employee! as a laborer at wages os lower than he earned previously. Sidney Charles Brown, secretary of the plaintiff union, said that he had not received any request from Ross and Glendining as to whether he had anyone available for work. On June 14* Maley was the only member of the union in Dunedin that was available, but there were men available elsewhere, He first head of Haley’s dismissal and' Bughy’s appointment at the monthly meeting on June 15. Mr Payne objected to telegrams from one union to another being put in as evidence in a case against an employer to prove that there were men available in the north. The Magistrate upheld tho objection, Mr Adams then asking that, if the point became material as to whether there were men available up north he should be given leave to have evidence taken on commission to prove this point. The Magistrate said that Mr Adams would have to decide whether this was necessary before closing his casc._ In cross-examination witness said that the Labor Department, when asked to take proceedings against defendant, admitted there had been a breach, but was not prepared to take action. Mr Payne; That was because it was too trivial, wasn’t it? The union was not prepared to treat the matter as suggested by the Labor Department, Witness: Wo objected to that. To Mr Payne: Mr Lough had not told witness that unless ho could get a machinist fifty or sixty men would bo out of employment every three months. Ho gave Air Lough credit for too much sense to make such a remark. Mr Lough did not tell witness that Bugby would not take a billet unless his wife, who was a machinist, wore employed in the same factory. Mr Payne: Though Bugby came out from Home as a unionist with his clearance, you would keep him out of a billet? Witness; No, certainly not. We are just testing this case to see if tho court will protect the members, of our union. Air Payne; But you refused to allow a competent man to join your union. Witness: The question was held in abeyance pending the hearing of the case, Tho quostion"of the calling of evidence by Air Adams to prove that men were available in the north was raised, Mr Payne stating that the matter was so trivial that he oould not agree to the matter being left oyer until! the close of the case to decide whether a Commission should be heard in Auckland to decide whether men were available. _ .... Air Adams: At that rate, I will have to ask for an adjournment to consider the matter. . . Mr Payne: If the case is adjourned, w© should bo allowed costs. W©tr© hot© all ready to go on. Air Adams submitted that costs should not be allowed, and the magistrate agreed to an adjournment until December 2, the matter of costs being reserved.