NON-UNIONIST WORKER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18799, 28 August 1924, Page 11

NON-UNIONIST WORKER

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD.

QUESTION OF PREFERENCE.

CHARGE AGAINST SHIPBUILDER.

A claim for £20 as a penalty for two alleged breaches of the Carpenters' and Joiners' Award, was brought by the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Join ers (Mr. Tuck), against Charles Bailey, junior, (Mr. Endean). ship and boat builder. Freeman's Bay, in the Magistrate's Court before Mir. E. C. Cutten, S.M., yesterday.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, on July 3, 1924, employed a man named Lee, a non-unionist, and did not within three days of the commencement of employing him notify the secretary of the union. Further, it was alleged, defendant did not dismiss Lee when requested, by the union, although there were several union members equally qualified and willing to perform the work Lee was doing.

Thomas Bioodworth, secretary of the plaintiff union, stated that he made inquiries about defendant employing a nonunionist, and defendant said he would not put on the man whom ; witness had chosen, although witness had not named any special man. Defendant said he would not dismiss the non-unionist in any case. Lee said he was not prepared to join the union, as he had religious objections to unionism. Defendant told witness that in any case he would not dismiss Lee, as he was short of joiners and could employ four more if witness could supply them. Witness again asked Lee to join the union, but he refused. „ Immediately after speaking to defendant witness, sent a good tradesman, named Anthony, to defendant, but the man was not engaged.

Reginald A. Anthony, joiner, said that when he applied to defendant for a position the latter said that had witness been a shipwright he would have been engaged. Witness, although not a shipwright, had had experience at joining on various vessels. Defendant said he was not going to discharge a non-unionist for a unionist. To. Mr. Endean: Defendant did not tell him he could not be taken on because of the weather.

Eobert John Paterson, ship's joiner, deposed that Anthony was a fnlJy qualified joiner, who could undertake ship work. Witness was offered a job by defendant, who said he could do with three or four more men if witness would recommend them, and that they could start at once. Defendant, in evidence, stated that he had employed Lee after a union employee had refused to do an easy job and had left. Lee was an exceedingly proficient workman, and witness' other employees did not object to working with a nonunionist. When the unionist had left him for no i reason at all, witness considered he was justified in employing Lee. Witness told Anthony there was a little more shipwright work to be done before extra joiners could be engaged. Mr. Endean submitted that there was no case to answer, as no evidence had been produced to show that Anthony was equally qualified to perform the work done by Lee. Mr. Tuck said it was important tha.t the efficiency of the preference clause should be upheld. It was not a question of putting Lee out of work, but of providing ' work for unionists who were unemployed. The magistrate reserved his decision.