The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1912.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3518, 8 May 1912, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1912.

Nothing, we feel sure, will tend to do the Labor A Blow from Within, cause move harm than incidents such as that which is reported to have taken place on the West Coast. It may he. recalled that at tho recent sittings of the Supreme Court at Greymouth Mr Justice Deuniston had before him a case in which Wm. E. Blanche sued the Greymouth Wharf Laborers’ Union and six members thereof for £2OO damages. The facts of the case were somewhat unusual. The complaint of tho plaintiff was that defendants illegally conspired and combined to compel his employers—the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, Ltd.—to dispense with his services as an overseer although the Company was perfectly satisfied with him, and that lie was, in consequence, dismissed. The defence was a general denial, and an affirmative allegation that if the act alleged by the plaintiff to have been done by the defendants were fluw, they were justified, inasmuch as the plaintiff frequently bore a domineering attitude and insulting manner towards the inembers of the defendants’ Union, who wero working under the plaintiff’s supervision, so that many of such workers found it impossible to work under plaintiff's supervision, and accordingly made complaint to this effect to tho Executive of the defendant Union, with the . result that at a meeting of it the following resolution was carried :

“That owing to the domineering attitude and insulting ' manner adopted by Sir Blanche towards tho members of this Union while working, we hereby give the Company 48 hours to have him removed/’

j This request the manage! ef t*ie J Union Company declined at first, asking that a deputation should he appointed to see him and lay a .specific charge against Blanche. -The deputation appointed declined to giro specific instances, and in the circumstances the manager gave what the Court regarded as the only. posmblq reply—that in his opinion they had ( no grounds of complaint, hut added that if they thought they had he was prepared to transfer Blanche to another shift. He had till then always had the night shift. The manager also gave instructions which he thought would prevent friction, i his offer was refused, the deputation saving that this was, in fact, promotionThe manager was told that trouble would arise if Blanche was not removed. The Union held another meeting and decided to adhere to the original demand and so advised the 1 Union Company. As the outcome at ’ representations to this effect the Company notified the employee in question that he was not to go on shift, that night, and the following day dismissed him, giving him a month s salary in lieu of notice. In explanation of this action the manager stated that he so acted from former experience and for fear of trouble. It wnl ' be seen that the circumstances surrounding the happenings were in mauj respects quite different from those that were attendant upon the wePkr.own Fuller incident, which led to the memorable tramways strike in Wellington. Not only did the manager of the Company offer to remove - the employee to another shift if a specific charge could he substantiated, but be also promised, in such an event, to take whatever other steps might be found necessary to obviate friction. But apparently the workers were not inclined to be concilia- “ tory, for they intimated that they would not rest content until the employee was dismissed. Now what His Honor, Mr Justice Dennistoh, had to say in giving judgment- must - meet with the approval of all fair-minded - persons: ‘‘'There can lie no question,” lie said, “as to the fact that the action of the Union showed a total absence of any notion of fair-play or sense of justice. The man was accused, tried, condemned, and sentenced at a meeting called without notice of any such business. I am satisfied that the threat conveyed and intend- _ ed to be understood by the Company's manager was a threat of trouble by the refusal of the men to work under Blanche on the termination of the 43 hours’ notice. This is a threat, and therefore the Company, having been induced or coerced by it to dismiss the plaintiff, and thereby to cause him to lose what was not only the prospect Ibut the certainty of continuous employment, in my opinion gives him a cause of action, and entitles him to such damages as he lias thereby incurred, which I assess at £65 with costs on the lowest scale.’’ Under tne circumstances, then, it would undoubtedly be in the best interests of Labor if the Executive of the new United Labor Party would take such steps as would indicate entire disapproval of the adoption of ugly methods such as that to which allusion has been made.