ALLEGED LIBEL

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXV, Issue 12914, 16 July 1936, Page 5

ALLEGED LIBEL

CLAIM BY A SEAMAN.

JUDGE’S PERTINENT INQUIRIES.

A UNION AND ITS RESPONSIBILITIES.

(Press Association!

WELLINGTON, July 15. Tho hearing of tho claim of Douglas Gibson, a member of the Seamen s Union, for £6OO damages for alleged libel against Fintan Patrick Walsh and Felix Newfield, officials of tho union, was continued to-day beforo Air Justico Blair.

Mr L. K. Wilson appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr E. P. Hay for the defendants.

On tho resumption of the hearing and in the course of re-examination hy Air Wilson, plaintiff said he was still nominally a member of the Seamen s Union, but, as a result of the action he had complained of, he had not succeeded in getting work on a ship.

His Honour (to plaintiff) : “You have not been able to get a job?”— That is so, except on a fishing trawler.”

His Honour.: “Suppose a man is pushed on the union when they do not want him ? Is that you position r 1” -•-“ Something near that.”

His Honour: “You would be looked upon with disfavour by certain members of tho union and it would make it unpleasant to the officers of the ship to. have you on a vessel?”— “Yes.”

“What actually happens if you are in the union ?”—“I might get a job on a ship where my friends are and I could remain, but if I got a job on a ship where a majority supported my expulsion that position would bo that [ could not remain. They would tell Tlio master or engineer of the ship they would not sail with me.” “Then that means you are out of employment?”—“Yes, sir.” His Honour: “I want to know the position in this case where a man's livelihood depends upon it. Plaintiff says that once a man is persona in grata he is unable to get employment and that the fact that a man has got a ’ declaration from the court that he ha. l ' been wrongly expelled is not sufficient and may practically be disregarded.”

In reply to His Honour, Mr Hay said the union could go to a certain extent in seeing that its members carried out its rules, but there were limits. 1

His Honour: “Suppose a majority ot the union decide that a ship must be taken to sea and the men will not do it, what happens? Suppose tho executive say to the men their course o* action is detrimental to the interests of the union, why are steps not taken ?”

Air- Hay: “It is a very easy matter to say why not deal with them. There is the power of individual members of the union to precipitate a strike.”

His Honour: “I think the union could do something. There are many ways of preventing victimisation. In tho ease of one ship the men wore told that one member of the union was entitled to sail with the vessel.”

Mr Hay: “What if the men persisted? The rank and file have groat power over the officials and tho nrosent ease is the result of it.”