SEAMAN’S APPEAL

Grey River Argus, 19 March 1941, Page 9

SEAMAN’S APPEAL

AGAINST PROHIBITION From Union Membership [Per Press Association] WELLINGTON, March 18. The option of answering, or refusing to answer, a question put him by one counsel, and objected to by another, was given a witness when the Arbitration Court to-day resumed the hearing of the appeal of Maurice Wall, seaman, of Wellington, against the Attorney-General’s action in issuing a notice, under the Emergency Regulations excluding Wall from the Seamen’s Union. The witness was Richard Ryan, a member of the Executive of the Wellington Union, wh 0 was asked yesterday by counsel for the appellant whether the Executive had asked the Federation of Labour to recommend to the Government the issue of the notice. Dr. N A. Foden, for the Attorney- 1 General, objected to the question. To-day M r Justice Tyndall said that it appeared that the question was closely related to matters that were at issue in another case, yet unheard. In view of the fact that witness was a member of the Executive of the body corporate involved in that case, the Court left it optional for him t 0 answer. Witness refused to answer the question. Outlining the appellant Wall’s case, Mr R. Hardie Boys submitted that the Regulations had been abused to further a private interest, rather than the public interest, and that on the | merits, there had been no just cause shown to exclude Wall from his lawful calling. The evidence would be that the Federation of Labour, acting on the recommendation of the Seamen’s Union, made a recommendation to Cabinet before the issue of the notice against Wall; and also that, on January 29, the Supreme Court had made a fixture for Wall’s case against the Union to, be heard on February 25. Nowhere had Crown counsel ’ established that any one of the acts mentioned in the Regulations was likely to be committed by Wail. His only offence was that he was a good trades unionist. The appellant, in his evidence, said be had been going to sea from 1914, with the exception of six and a-half years, when he was an Official of the Wellington Seamen’s Union. All of his discharges were marked “very good.’’ On no occasion had he even been “logged.” The only conviction ( ever recorded against him was for| failing to make income tax returns a few years ago. He had never been dealt with for any misconduct on a ship by his Union or by anyone else. Witness was questioned about the value he placed on discharges, and said that they were the seamen’s bread and butter. He did not agree with the view expressed by another witness that discharges were not worth the paper that they were written .on.

In July, 1940, witness stated, he, notified the Wellington Seamen’s Union that he desired reinstatement.] He was informed that he held membership in Dunedin, and must apply there. The Dunedin Union advised him that, because of existing unemployment, no more new members were being taken on. Acting on legal advice, he applied, as though a new member, for membership in the Wellington Union. When this was refused, a writ was issued in the Supreme Court. Since December 19, he had been working ashore. Witness gave evidence of his services on the “Maheno.” He denied either flouting authority or silent insolence. He said that he had always been civil to his superior officers. When he joined the “Maui Pomare,'-' 1 the accommodation and the conditions generally for the crew were disgraceful. Witness referred to changes in routine and to improvements in accommodation which he admitted, had been made largely at his instigation, and he said that when he left the ship, it was more like a union ship than when he joined it. He had been called an agitator and a troublemaker, but it was only for improved conditions. The hearing will continue to-mor-row morning.