ALLEGEDLY VICTIMISED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17269, 19 September 1919, Page 5

ALLEGEDLY VICTIMISED.

OBJECTION TO UNION LEVY.

WATERSTDER'S COMPLAINT.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF.

Judgment in the case in. which victimisation of a wharf labourer was alleged against th£ Auckland Waterside Workers' Union (Mr. Sullivan) was delivered fry Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., yesterday.

In this case Joseph Colvin (Mr. Fleming) labourer, Birkenhead, and a member of the union, sued the union, through its officials, for £25 damages for preventing his employment, through a dispute he had with the union. He alleged that certain of the officials of the union on more than one occasion caused his discharge through refusing him his quarterly ticket and informing his employers that' he was unfinancial, and warning them not to continue his employment. The magistrate said that among the facts proved or admitted were that in addition to the quarterly subscription of 5s the members of the union had for the last 12 months been paying Is a quarter toward what was known as the " Legal Aid " fund, to provide a sum for fighting legal actions. The plaintiff objected to this extra shilling being added to the subscription, and desired that the rules of the union be followed. The rules provided ! that a compulsory levy could be struck i only after a secret ballot had favoured it.

This objection was well known to many members of the union, who strongly disapproved of plaintiff's opposition to the levy and his insistence on a ballot, which would have cost the union from £3 to £5 to carry out. The legal aid question was discussed at a large meeting of members, 604 voting for the fund and 18 against. The plaintiff did not vote. After reviewing the evidence relative to plaintiff's inability to get work, the magistrate said he must find : —(1) That the quarterly subscription of 5s was tendered twice and it was each time refused be cause the extra shilling was not added to it; (2) In consequence of not having his quarterly ticket the plaintiff was regarded by the officials and members of the union as unfinancial, and was stated by the president to be so to his employers; (3) the statement by the president caused plaintiff to be dismissed from his work by two employers; (4) the plaintiff suffered loss by such action. Mr. Poynton said he felt sorry to have to give judgment against the defendants. The object of the levy was obviously so beneficial that any reasonable person should have supported it without a ballot. However, the plaintiff was entitled to have a referendum on the question. When the proposal was carried by such an overwhelming Majority he should have loyally submitted to it, notwithstanding its irregularities. " Now that the matter has been dealt with," said His Worship, "I hope the old man will not further suffer by reason of his ill-advised attitude. In the words of a sincere friend of unionism, our present Chief Justice, in a similar case :' 'I may add that I hope that the defendants will show that there is true brotherhood of labour by using their endeavours to get the plaintiff reinstated in his employment . . . and not take up an attitude of ill-will toward him— attitude which is generally associated with the doings of a tyrannical trust.' " Judgment was given for plaintiff for £10. with costs amounting to £5 6s, security for appeal beine fixed at £10 10s, plus the amount of judgment and costs.