WATERFRONT DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15521, 31 January 1914, Page 11

WATERFRONT DISPUTE.

NEW UNION SUED.

PLAINTIFF LOSES CASE.

OFFICIALS' ACTION JUSTIFIED.

A nonsuit was entered by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., yesterday, in the case of Frederick Mayman, an ex-striker (Mr. Hall Skelton), v. the new Waterside Workers' Union (Mr. R. N. Moody, instructed by Mr. B. Wyman), a claim for £25 damages. Tho plaintiff in the action, which came before the Court at the beginning of the week, alleged that ofilcials of tho new union intentionally, and without lawful justification, induced the agents for the steamer Kilbryde to terminate a contract of service, which consisted in the unloading of coal from the vessel mentioned. The plaintiff was not a member of the new union.

Tho magistrate reviewed the facta of the case, and then remarked that the new union had made an industrial agreement with the shipping companies, including the New Zealand Shipping Company, the employer in tho caso before the Court. This agreement had not yet been filed, but there was still time for this to be done. He disagreed with Mr. Skelton' argument that tho agreement did not operate until it had been filed, and held that it became operative on the day upon which it was signed by the parties, in this case January 7. Therefore he was of opinion that the agreement was valid and binding on the union and the other parties signing it, and would continue operative until its expiry. llio agreement contained a very farreaching preference clause, giving extra preference to certain workmen, and' this tact, it had been contended, mado it void, as such a preference was contrary to the policy of the labour laws of the Dominion, in hw opinion, however, this was not so, for it upheld the policy of the labour laws. 1 he magistrate then went on to point out that the members of the union and the firms who signed the agreement were liable to a penalty for any breach they mignt commit. Plaintiff was not a member of tho new union, a fact that, with nearly all the other facts of the case, was not in dispute between tho parties. Further, it was admitted that the stevedore for the New Zealand Shipping Company could dismiss watersiders employed by him at any time he chose. He would assume that the union was liable for the actions of tho officials of the union mentioned in the statement of claim, and then the question arose what did these men do, and did their conduct amount, to an actionable wrong. Mr. Kettle then quoted authorities to show that to induce a breach of a contract is not actionable if there is in the surrounding circumstances, of the caso justification for such inducement. The authorities proceeded to affirm that it would bo » good justification for using such an inducement if the defendant was doing nothing, more than assisting the performance of a prior contract. In the present case, he want on, there was no evidence showing that there was anything in the nature ot a threat of violence or anything of that sort, while there was no evidence of a conspiracy "To my mind," added the magistrate, "all that the evidence shows is that the officers of the union went down to the ship and saw two men who were not members of the union working there. The officials knew the employment of the men was contrary to the terms of the industrial agreement entered into. All their subsequent actions amounted to was the drawing of the attention of officers of the New Zealand Shipping Company to the fact that they were committing a breach of the agreement in employing the men. In my opinion they were perfectly justified m doing that. The stevedore thereupon called the men to him and paid them off. There was no such inducement in the con- | duct of the defendants as would give rise Ito an action for damages. Therefore lam of opinion that the plaintiff cannot succeed in his action, and he will be nonsuited. . The .question of costs was left to the solicitors engaged in the case to arrange.