JUDGMENT FOR COUNCIL

Evening Star, Issue 22775, 9 October 1937, Page 9

JUDGMENT FOR COUNCIL

VICTIMISATION CHARGES DISPROVED [Pek United Pans Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, October 8. Victimisation of a county council employee was alleged in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, when the Labour Department claimed penalties totalling £55 from the Akaroa County Council on four allegations. In his opening remarks Mr R. T. Bailey, for the Labour Department, said that at a meeting of employees of the council a councillor “ barged his way in ” while under the influence of liquor. Subsequent evidence also referred to this matter. The remark applied by Mr Bailey to the councillor was strongly objected to by Mr C. S. Thomas, counsel for the county council. The following breaches were alleged:— 1. That the defendant council, as a party bound by the New Zealand local bodies’ award, dismissed from its employ Peter Haglund and A, T. Rhodes merely because they were members of an industrial union of workers and were entitled to the benefits of_ the award. The sum of £25 was claimed as a penalty. 2. That between December 14, 1938, and July 20, 1937, wages were not paid weekly or fortnightly. A penalty of £lO was claimed. 3. That suitable accommodation had not been provided to enable the Workers to change and dry their clothes and to have their meals. A penalty of £lO was claimed. 4. That between June 1, 1937, and July 5, 1937, the council took proceedings with the intention of defeating the provisions of the New Zealand local bodies’ award. A penalty of £lO was claimed. Mr Bailey said that under the provisions of the award wages should be paid at least fortnightly, unless there had been an agreement between the union and the council. During the Christmas and New Year holidays the workers were called upon to go without their wages for a period of six weeks. The new award came into force on December 14. 1936. A meeting of the employees of the council was held on May 7, 1937, and was addressed by the secretary of the General Labourers’ Union. “ Haglund was chairman of the meeting,” Mr Bailey said, “ and we have the sorry spectacle of Cr J. Hayward ‘ barging his way ’ into the meeting under the influence of liquor, and having to be ordered out by the chairman, who was at the time a county council employee.” Mr Bailey said that a letter was forwarded to the county clerk, setting out a number of the provisions of the award, Surfacemen and labourers employed by the council were advised of the termination of their employment, to operate on July 2. They were advised, however, that they were eligible to applv for positions on the staff. The successful applicants were advised of their appointment as labourers for a period not exceeding three mouths, and that the council would review the position at tlxg end of, or during, this

period. Haglund and Rhodes were not reappointed. Mabel B. Howard, secretary of the General Labourers’ Union', said' that’ she attended a meeting of council employees. Haglund, one of the men dismissed, was in the chair. During the meeting Mr Hayward, a member of the council, twice came in, .and Haglund asked him to leave. The councillor, witness said, was very much under the influence of liquor. After Hayward left, the door was locked and the meeting proceeded. Mr Thomas: Do you suggest thj.t, because Mr Hayward attended a meeting of the union at which Haglund was in the chair, therefore Haglund was dismissed? Witness: Yes, I do. Mr Thomas: That is then the basis of this charge of victimisation? —Yes. Colin Stewart, clerk to the Akaroa County Council, read from a minute book the council’s decision to reorganise the staff by dismissals and calling for fresh applications. Of 14 old hands 12 were taken on again. Haglund and Rhodes were not re-engaged. Witness said that Mr Butler, secretary of the Fedel-atiohn of Labour in Wellington, telephoned to him- _ Mr Butler described the council’s action in dismissing the men as “despicable tactics, a flagrant breach of the award, and an act of victimisation and intimidation.” The council met next day and decided to take no action. Witness saicl he received a telephone message on September 3 from Mr T. H. M'Combs, M.P., saying that the Labour Department and the union were prepared to drop the charges of victimisation if the council would reinstate Haglund ._ Mr Thomas, for the defence, said he had neyer appeared in s.upfa a scandal-

ous labour .prosecution. It was based on suspicion, ■ Cr Hayward was not proud of the incident when he intruded on the labourers’* meeting, and had told no ene of the incident. . Members of the council, in evidence, said that when the applications for positions were under consideration they were not aware that Haglund had presided at a labourers’ meeting. The magistrate dismissed the first charge as trivial. He said he failed to see where the prosecution had established any of the other charges. He was satisfied that the councillors acted as they thought best in the interests of the ratepayers. Judgment was given for the defendant council on the other three charges.