WORK ON WATERFRONT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15518, 28 January 1914, Page 7

WORK ON WATERFRONT

NEW UNION'S POWERS.

SEQUEL TO DISMISSAL.

QUESTION FOR MAGISTRATE.

Thb question, as to whether the new union of waterside workers at Auckland, has power to go to an employer and insist op. the discharge of a non-unionist employed on the wharf was raised before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The plaintiff in the action in question was Frederick Mayman, one of the waterside workers who went out on, strike (Mr. Hall Skelton), who proceeded against the Auckland Waterside Workers' Industrial Union of Workers (Mr. R, N. Moody, instructed by Mr. B. Wyman), alleging that officials of the new union intentionally, and without lawful justification, induced the employer of the plaintiff to terminate a contract of service entered into on January 14, 1914, between the plaintiff and the employer. He claimed £25 damages from the union.

Mr. Skelton, in opening the case, said the proceedings were somewhat of a test. The ex-strikers desired to know just exactly what was the power of the new union in regard to the matter of employment.

Frederick Mayman, the plaintiff, stated that he was engaged by an agent of the New Zealand.Shipping Company to unload the coal-laden steamer Kilbryde. He and his mates were asked if they had their union tickets, and "the witness replied that he had applied for admission to the union. The agent then remarked that he could not be bothered waiting any longer, and told them they had better start work. They worked until lunch time, but after lunch they found there were two extra men in the hold. The agent of the New Zealand Shipping Company then said to the witness and his mate that, in consequence of the representations of the union, he would have to dispense with their services, but added that if they joined the new union they could go back to work. Afterwards the. secretary of the new union told them that he had brought about their dismissal on account of the fact that they were non-unionists.

Cross-examined, the witness explained that he ( had - applied for admission to the new union twice, but had been refused on each occasion.

The case at this stage was adjourned until to-day.