EXAMPLES SOUGHT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22618, 22 April 1948, Page 6

EXAMPLES SOUGHT

INCITINGJJNREST WITNESS QUESTIONED DIFFICULT TO FIX BLAME (P A.) HAMILTON, April 21. Cross-examined by Mr. C. Hair, for L V Clapham. a resident engineer, A. E. Clark, said he gave very little information to Clapham about the reasons for the latter s transfer, but I did tell him I would not stay on the job if he did.” , , ... Clapham had no special qualifications for the job in Auckland to which he was transferred. Mr. Hair: Then it was not a transfer for the convenience of the depsitment? Witness: It was for the convenience of the department. Mr. Hair: It was an unprecedented transferWitness; It was unusual. “Clapham Responsible Asked whether he held Ciapham responsible for certain actions taken by the men at Mangakino, witness said it was difficult to fix on Clapham the blame for any particular actions, but witness considered that Clapham was responsible for many things which could not be brought home to him directly. . Witness said he was aware that until Anvil. 1917. (he men on the job had free food and that after that the concession was withdrawn. There was some ill feeling. He was not aware that when subsequently it was proposed that a deputation should approach the Minister asking for a locality allowance of 30s a week instead of the ps (hen paid, Clapham had opposed the demand as unreasonable. Mr Hair: If it can be shown that Clapham did in facl do that, would yon say it was the act of a disrupter? ' Witness: Not on the face of it, but, Clapham is a clever man and he would know just how far be could go. He would ' realise that if he supported ridiculous claims he would lose the means of obtaining his aims.

“Men Kept in State of Unrest” Mr. Hair: Do you think Clapham was responsible for the cookhouse dispute? Witness: It is hard to pin down the responsibility for certain particular events, but I am satisfied they are the result of a policy of endeavouring to keep the men in a state of unrest Mr Hair: Do you know that Clapham was in Wellington and did not attend that meeting? , Witness: No, but it is possible that once having prompted a mass into motion it can be left to itself.. Mr. Hair: Can Clapham be held responsible for the increased cookhouse charges? Witness: There is no argument against the men asking for higher cost of living allowances. We object to the threat to stop a job unless something is done quickly. , ~ Witness admitted that the fiction ol the men over the catering dispute might have been precipitated bv the action oi the caterers, but there was no justification .for the threat oi strike action. The me n had the remedy in their own hands to arrange new catering contracts, or if they fell that the charges they were asked to pay were 100 high, they could have approached the Minister for a higher locality allowance. Asked how much lime was lost by the men’s action over (lie catering question. witness replied one night shift payment. For that lost a shift was later authorised Irom Wellington. Witness said that when union officials in February had asked him to specify the charges against Clapham he had declined to discuss the matter with them. He would say. however, that the transfer was for the good of the job. Mr. Hair: Can you definitely pin down any activity of Clapham's that you would definitely regard as disruptive ;md likely to cause delay, or even chaos, on the job.

Witness: Yes, I can. His whole behaviour on the job has been designed to further the aims of the doctrine lie believes in.

Mr. Hair: But that is a political doctrine. Can you mention any instance of Clapham inciting the men not to pul! their weight, nr not to work so hard. Have you any criticism of him personally as a worker Witness: No Asked further by Mr. Hair and by Mr. Hilton to give specific instances of Clapham’s disruptive activity on Hie job. witness said it was difficult to name specific matters but he knew that Clapham was responsible for the unrest among the men. Witness, answering questions by Mr. Shilton, said: “It is not oni particular instance, it is the whole design of Clapham’s behaviour I object to.” “A Trouble-maker” Mr. Engel: In effect isn’t your charge that lie is a trouble-maker? Witness: That is so. Mr. Shilton: I presume if he is a trouble-maker, you would have no difficulty in preferring one charge. To Mr. Hanson witness said he considered that Mr. Clapham’s writings in the “Mangakino Spark” and his action in giving information to the Rotorua newspaper showed disloyalty to his employers and made him unfit to be on the job. Witness said at Mangakino he had had to devote an abnormal amount of time to dealing with complaints and disputes. He had no cause to complain about Clapham’s approaches to him as a union official, but Clapharn’s great influence with the men on the job had been used not for the good of the job, but to benefit and advance his theories which did not agree with our methods of running and controlling the work. Mr. Hanson: Although his approaches to you were gentlemanly and courteous, that was used as a cloak for deeper subversive activity? Witness: That is so.