DAMAGES AWARDED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17594, 6 October 1920, Page 8

DAMAGES AWARDED.

cancelled Engagement. . .QUESTION ,OF WAGES, MASTERS WAIT ON EMPLOYER. judgment in the action brought yySidriey; Wheeler (Mr v A. E. Skelton), , .against, H., Mteesing, S. T Fisher;, and *s?T -V. -Hoffiah (Mr. . Zimanf,:- master plumheA, *in 510 damages .for alleged loss of employlent, was ' delivered "•. yesterday, "in -the iagistrate's Court by Mr., J. W. Poyn nn. ft.M. .', Thn magistrate said the^cir-

ion, : Cum. ' 4»p .iUdjj»««.«M«? S v.«»«... _.._,__ cunistances /were that plaintiff, _ becoming dissatisfied with his. wages of 2s Id .an hour,vlef bisjmployiaent. 2 His, anion obtained for him another position at 2s 3d an hour.. Before . he- Started ; work again his former >snployer attended a meeting of the Master Plumbers*. Association .and brought before it the matter of his roan leaving him for higher Vages.-, Other matters discussed included' something in the nature of a strike—men ceasing -to work except' for higher pay— as labour was scarce 'M "was decided that something should be done to meet it. • A. deputation of master-plumbers waited on plaintiffs new employer, apparently with three objects-rto discuss .the' expected strike, to secure plaintiffs dismissal with the view to deterring others from following his example j arid to get his new employer to join the association. The deputation was successful in all three of its objects. Plaintiff's /new employer signed - a document agreeing not. to increase the men's wages' above the present rates, except by agreement wUh ' others , employers, who had signed the document, or by an award. The document further stated that in the event of la "strike or stop-work by the I employees, the employers, agreed, not to employ men-from other shops, except by i agreement. ; The penalty for a 'breach of the agreement was. £20,-to & paid: to the association. -, The magistrate held that after signing" i>he document the. employer was >not v a free agent regarding r - plaintiff. The'three appeared to have taken the .most active part in. the -deputation. After.-the interview" the-employer informed plaintiff that;." the engagement was ''off." -r The question" was whether, in the circumstances, the; defendants were liable. The magistrate,' for illustration, supposed a deputation' of trades unionists waiting on a worker to urge, him to.break is engagement with his employer;" referring to his .conduct "as unfair, ..and bringing to his knowledge a resolution of the union dealing with men who*, worked for less than tha union wage, and then enrolling him in their unions" If, /as a result of this pressure, the employee ceased his work, the magistral* held that the .union would be liable to the employer. If so, defendants would also be liable to the person injured {the plaintiff). The amount claimed was not unreasonable. Judgment was for £10 and- costs. Appeal was allowed on security, of £15. and the amount of judgment and costs. "■"