Waterfront Writ Refused

Northern Advocate, 15 July 1949, Page 5

Waterfront Writ Refused

WELLINGTON, Fri. (P.A.)—A claim by the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union for a writ of mandamus against members of the Waterfront Industry Authority has been x-efused by the Supreme Court. In a judgment issued today, the Chief Justice (Sir Humphi’ey O’Leary) shai’ply criticises plaintiffs for “impugning the integrity of the authority and undermining, or endeavouring to undermine, its deliberations, apart from other x’eprehensible acts.” He considered the conduct of one of the parties on the tribunal had been such as to make any approach to attaining judicial standards impossible, and asked what good purpose could be served by issuing a wit when it seemed certain that, if the authority’s' decisions were not approved, there would be a return to the conduct which had brought it into disrepute and stopped it functioning. The writ was sought early this month to command the authority to meet again to deal with 23 disputes outstanding after it adjourned on April 4. 1 AUTHORITY’S LETTER Defendants in the action wex’e Judge Douglas James Dalglish, Harold Barnes, Tobias Hill, Alexander Belford and Thomas Sidney Marchington. The judgment travei-sed the events which led up to the sending, on May 26 of a letter to Barnes and Hill by the chairman of the Waterfront Industry Authority (Judge Dalglish). The letter asked Banxes and Hill to refrain from publishing reports of discussions which took place at meetings of the authority when it was deliberating, and to refrain from publishing matter derogatoi-y to the authority or any of its members. The letter also referred to statements in the pamphlet “Our Union is Attacked,” and an issue of “The New Zealand Transport Worker,” the union journal. OBJECTIONABLE Referring to these publications and another—a pamphlet “The Attack Continues” His Honor said, in addition to the matters complained of in the lettei’, they contained many objectionable and reprehensible comments, allegations and kxfei’ences as, for example: “The judicial integrity of the authority was impeached: the authority was not an independent judicial body: it submitted to Ministerial dictation: U had nq intention to examine and adjudicate upon claims according to their merits (vide the New Zealand Tx-ans-port Worker exhibit): the actioiis of chairman and employers' nominees on the authority were cheeky, insolent and presumptuous and,, that, on one occasion, they had met to railroad through this prize bunch of resolutions: the chairman provoked representatives of the union to walk off the authority, and so found an alibi for not meeting the workers’ wages claim.” “In view of all this,” stated the judgment, “the chairman was justified in stating in his letter: ‘lt should be! obvious to you (Barnes and Hill) that the Waterfront Industry Authoi-ity cannot carry out its functions satis- . factorily if members of the. authority act -in that fashion when they disagree with any decision of the authority."

"REPREHENSIBLE ACTS” "With this 1 agree,” continued the judgment, “and, with failure to give such undertakings as were asked for. and unless they were carried out if given. I cannot gee how the Authority can function or hope to function. "A litigant, and that is what die plaintiff really is. before the Authority, and representatives of that litigant on the Authority, have, apart from other reprehensible acts, impugned its integrity or endeavoured to undermine its deliberations. “The actions complained of have resulted in the tribunal ceasing to have any of the. outward characteristics of a judicial authority, and the nature of relations between members is such as to make it undesirable that it continue to try to fimction without the assurances asked for by the chairman.”'