SEAMEN’S UNIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 April 1927, Page 11

SEAMEN’S UNIONS

- MR YOUNG’S EVIDENCE.

(Pet Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, April 8.

In the Seaffien’s Union case, William Thomas Young, Upion Secretary, said that, for many years, he had actfed as Secretary to the Seamen’s organisations. Up to last year, there were thrfeq unions knotvii as “locals” —at Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin—registered under the I.C. and A. Act. There was also an organisation known as the Federated Seamen's Union of New Zealand Industrial Association of Workers. Witness was Secretary to both the Wellington “Local” and the Association.,

Witness stated that a postal ballot among the members, early in 1926, approved of the deregistration of the three “Locals” and of the Association under the I.C. and A. Act, by an overwhelming majority, the subject of this step being the formation of one big union. In May last the cancellation was granted, and by the 22nd of July an agreement as to wages and conditions had been approved by the three “Locals,” and signed* in the name of the Federated Seamen’s Union of New Zealand, Witness continued that dissension later on arose among the officials of the movement, and there had been trouble between officials ever since. Mr Hoggard: “What happened on January 25?” Witness: “That was a famous day. A large number of men, headed by a man who was Mr Walsh’s vigilance officer, demanded of me to hand over the keys and the offices to Mi' Walsh. I declined to do either. Then the man who acts as Mr Walsh’s vigilance officer puts his hand in my pocket and

Mi- Hoggard: “You needn’t go into details!”

Witness: “Well, we were put ont. I’ve still got the keys though!” During further cross-examination by Mr Hay, witness said that, in his opinion, the Wellington “Local” functions on moral grounds after it was deregistered. He contended that the rules of “Local” had been carried on, with amendments, into the organisation that was formed under the Trade Unions Act.

After further evidence had been given by the witness, Mr Hoggard said he had no more evidence to call. Mr Hay said that he would call at least five witnesses when the case again came on for hearing. An adjournment to the 28th April Avrfs granted.