BROTHERHOOD OF LABOUR.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 2, 13 December 1911, Page 2

BROTHERHOOD OF LABOUR.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION. Wellington, Dec. 12. A judgment important in its effect on the powers of a union and a union secretary was delivered by

Flis Honour the Chief Justice this [afternoon. Pierre Chapplin, cook, [ of Wellington, was the plaintiff and i the defendants were IV. T. Young. secretary, and tbe Wellington seci lion of the Australasian Federated [ Seamen's Industrial Union of Work- [ crs. The plaintiff claimed damages [ from the defendants on two grounds, >i(l) that they induced certain seamen ■ and firemen to leave their employment because the plaintiff was kept as a cook on board the steamer ' Xikau ; (2) that they threatened the I employers of the plaintiff that if the plaintiff was not dismissed they ! would prevent sailors or firemen [joining the vessel at Xikau, in which i the plaintiff was employed. The ’learned judge in stating the facts 11 of trie case said that the plaintiff j was a ship’s cook. He had had con- : i siderable experience and had ever borne a good clraracter and had ’ : proved himself an efficient cook. The defendants had not averred anything against either his character of ibis efficiency. Certain members of it he union did leave work because , i tb<- plaintiff was not discharged by :!>is employers. They were within ’their rights in doing so. But they also threatened the captain that if J the cook was not dismissed they • would pr-ei ent seamen or firemeji J joining the vessel. His Honour went |on to -ox ; I feel sure that what ■ was done iiriisi have been done • without iliir’ c ■nsideratiim. This feel,l ing is confirmed by the fact that, ! as 1 have said. Y'oung stated that i what ha>i occurred would not happen i again. Tire defendant no doubt saw I that to deprive a workman of ani other- union of his employment without hearing any complaint against I him, and by accepting the state- , merit of bis i-oiii]:anions as true with- [ out giving the plaintiff a chance of | defending himself, was as tyrannical [ and cruel as it was unjust and illei gal. 1 must therefore give judgment j for the plaintiff for the sum of £5O ! with costs on the lowest scale and i witnesses’ expenses and disburse- ! nients. Seeing that defendants have [ disclaimed any intention of pursuing i tire course pieviously followed, it ’s i not necessary io grant any injunci firm. I may a-.ld that I hope that the dei'endams uill show that there :is true brotherhood ’J' labour by using 1 heir lies' <-mleavoius to get [ the plaintiff reinstated in ernployI r.tent tis a cook on :-.<;mo steamer or i ship, ;iiid not take i’.]> an attitude of I ill-will towards him. an attitude which is gem-rally associated with jthe (ioings of a tyianmcal trust.