FREEZING WORKERS’ UNION

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 November 1933, Page 7

FREEZING WORKERS’ UNION

COURT ORDER DISOBEYED. [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] GISBORNE, November 8. A case was mentioned in the Supreme Court, yesterday afternoon, in which.fi William. Neenan and others are proceeding against the Poverty Bay Freezing Workers’ Union, claiming that the Union, through its committee, is carrying on in defiance of the rules, and that in seeking to recover subscriptions from plaintiffs, they had exceeded their powers. Mr. Beaufoy, solicitor on the record for defendants, asked leave to retire, owing to the defendants’ refusal to take his advice and comply with the order of discovery made by the court. Mr. Justice Ostler said the application was proper. Mr. Burnard, for the plaintiffs, detailed tho proceedings taken for the discovery of the documents essential to plaintiffs’ case. In September, 1932, the defendant union consisted of 400 members, including plaintiffs. It refused to accept the terms offered by the employers, when the award expired but the majority of its members went back to work, and formed a new union. Since then, the defendant union had been practically defunct, had held no election, and had not presented another balance-sheet, and had . done nothing except to sue certain plaintiffs for their fees. His Honor adjourned the case until this morning, stating that much would depend upon the action taken by the defendants, in the meantime, to comply with the order of the Com t.

THE JUDGE’S CENSURE. GISBORNE, November S. When the hearing of the freezers case was resumed, Mr Barnard intimated that he had received a number of documents, but the position was still unsatisfactory. Mr Whitehead, appearing tor the defendants, submitted the only obligation imposed upon Bickford, secretary to the Union, was to disclose all the documents in his possession. He had done that. His Honor: It ha s been shown that the auditor submitted’ the report. That should have been disclosed. . “Regarding the default in complying with the order,” continued the Judge, “in my opinion it was wilful. _ Bickford was clearly advised that it was his duty to obey the order of the Court, to make a full discovery. No steps were taken to obey the order, and it is not obeyed at this moment. It was only under the threat of attachment yesterday that these papers were handed up in dribs and drabs. I should be stultifying the Court if I overlooked such deliberate flouting of the order of the Court. Trough I may be showing weakness, however, I shall not issue a writ of attachment to imprison Bickford, but shall order the statement of defence to be struck out and shall hold over the order of attachment until the hearing. I shall then decide if it is in the interests of justice to commit Bickford' for contempt. Plaintiffs will have to prove their case, but defendants will have n 0 right of defence.