CASE AGAINST UNION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20554, 3 May 1930, Page 14

CASE AGAINST UNION.

WATER SIDER'S CLAIM.

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE.

VICTIMISATION DENIED. COURT RESERVES DECISION. t ■■ The claim for damages by a waterside worker who alleged victimisation against his union was',further heard by Mr. Just.ico Smith in the Supremo Court yesterday. The plaintiff was Thomas Moylan (Mr. Dickson) commonly known as Paddy Miles, a member of the Waterside Workers Union, and- ho took action against the union and its "walking delegato Robert Irvine (Mr. V. J. O'Regan, of Wellington, and Mr. Sullivan), on the ground that tho defendants had entered into a conspiracy to prevent him from earning his livelihood on tho waterfront, He claimed damages at the rate of £6 a week from March 23, 1929, to tho date of judgment, £3OO damages for loss suffered, and £2OO general damages. During tho hearing of the case on Thursday it was stated that tho trouble arose between Miles and his union over r letter written by his wife in March of last year to a foreman who engaged labour on tho wharves. A pound note was enclosed in tho letter, and this was regarded by members of the union as a bribo to tho foreman. Thereafter it was alleged they refused to work with Miles, and his evidence was that ho had been unable to obtain work for more than 12 months, that he had exhausted all his savings and that he and his wife and family wero now living on charity. " Walking Delegate's " Attitude.

Mr. Dickson continued his crossexamination of tho defendant, Robert Irvine, who said that Miles had refused to come before tho officers of tho union and tell his story. If Miles had done so it would have made the task of the executive in getting the men to work with Miles much easier.

His Honor: Then you did not regard this incident of the letter as a violation of union principles? Witness: Oh, yes, I did. His Honor: Then I cannot understand your attitude.

Witness continued that he had told the men that they were wrong in taking up the attitude of not working with Miles. Ho advised them to discontinue that attitude on the ground that Miles was a member of the union, and that they could not refrain from working with him. Ho put it that although Miles had violated the principles of unionism still they were to work with him. Ho warned the men they were on dangerous ground if they refused to work with him, and that tho matter would have to go to law oventually. His Honor: Then I take it you dissociate yourself from that/ attitude of the men? Witness: Absolutely, right throughout the piece His Ho.nor : Did you know that if Miles were employed the whole body of men would refuse to work with him ?—Oh, no. Only individual men. Witness said he shared the popular opinion about Miles' action in sending money by letter, but he accepted the statement that his wife wrote it.

-A Respectful Suggestion. The president of the Waterside Workers' Union, Charles Stephen Morris, said that as a result of what be heard about the men Stopping work because of Miles, he attended a mooting of the disputes committee to deal, with the matter. Later he respectfully suggested to Miles that he should come before the executive and explain, but Miles said ho was being paid for the work and was not going to leave. Witness approached him several times, but Miles was adamant and refused to come.

"As president of the union I have always stood for order and discipline, and the growth' of the port," declared the witness. If Miles had come to the executive witness believed that he could havo eased the position for him. Mrs. Miles saw him at his house onco and Miles twice. Mrs. Miles wrote a letter of apology under his direction, and accepted responsibility for tho original letter that caused the trouble.

Mr. O'Regan: Has the union officially or unofficially taken any steps to injure this man ?

Witness: The union officials have been extremely - anxious and careful and guarded. No one has felt it more than myself.

Molestation from Members. The witness stated ho had received considerable molestation from individual members of the union for allowing Miles to interview him at his house. Mr.' Dickson: Did Miles get a fair go on the wharf? " Witness: .It is not for me to say. I don't employ him. His Honor: That is the issue in the case. It is not for him to decide.

Answering His Honor witness said that at no time had the executive or tho members of the union generally accepted Miles' explanation of the letter until tha gworn evidence had been given in Court. Alfred Ernest Jaggs, secretary of Nearing and Company, stevedores, said he did not remember Miles over coming before him for engagement. ' Witness had never.been asked not to employ Miles. William O'Brien, Union Steam Ship Company foreman, in cross-examination said that Mrs. Miles came to him tho day after he received tho letter containing tho £1 and satisfied him that she had written it. Ho considered the letter the greatest insult he had ever heard of a man getting in his life. Charles F. Canavan, senior foreman, for tho Union Steam Ship Company, said he did not think ho had refused Miles engagement ,during tho last 12 months. Tho reason why ho would not have employed Miles was that ho could not afford to have a hont. held up for one man. lie had no instructions not to employ Miles.

Tho statement that if M'les had stood up before him he would have been employed was , made bv David R. Davis, foreman of Leonard and Dingley.

Tho foreman of tho Northern Steamship Company, Wilfred Leslie Goddard, said he had never refused employment to Miles.

Captain 11. A. Anderson, wharf superintendent of the Union Steam Ship Company, was recalled to fiivo his recollections of a meeting of the Disputes Committee in April of last year. Tho meeting was heated and broke up in disorder. Ife insisted ori Miles going back to work in the Tofua's hold and on the others resuming also. , This closed the evidence.

Mr. Dickson said that if His Honor found that Irvine did what he was alleged to have done then the only question was whether or not he acted within the scope of his authority. Counsel argued that he did so act.

His Honor reserved his decision, saying that he hoped to be fible to give it on Monday morijing.