DAMAGES AWARDED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20556, 6 May 1930, Page 14

DAMAGES AWARDED.

WHARF WORKER SUCCEEDS.

j. ACTION AGAINST UNION. DEPRIVED OF EMPLOYMENT. THREAT' MADE TO COMPANY. Judgment for £2lB was given against the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union ; and its "walking delegate," Robert Irvine, by Mr. Justice Smith in tho Supreme Court yesterday, in the case in ■which a member" of the union. Thomas Moylan, commonly known as Paddy Miles, alleged that he had been victimised by being deprived of employment. Plaintiff had claimed damages at the rate of £6 a, week from March 23, 1929, to the date of judgment, £3OO damages for loss suffered, and £2OO general damages. During the hearing it was stated that tho trouble arose between Miles and the union over a 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 jis a bribe to the foreman. Thereafter, it was alleged, they refused to work with Miles, and his evidence was that he had been unable to 'obtain work for moro than 12 months, that he had exhausted all his ' savings, and that lie and his wife and family were now living on charity.

His Honor's Conclusions. His Honor, in delivering judgment, B.iid ho had accepted and attached considerable importance to the evidence of Captain 11. A. Anderson, wharf superintendent for the Union Steam Ship Company, regarding intimations from Irvino that if Miles were employed tho job would be "stuck up." I lis Honor said his conclusions were as follows: — ■ "(1) That Irvine had determined bv 'April 16. 1929, that the plaintiff would get no moro work on the Auckland waterfront. "(2) That Irvine stopped tho men on the Port Napier from working with tho plaintiff, and thereby caused the plaintiff to lorfe that employment. ' "(3) That Irvine was instrumental in procuring tho plaintiff's discharge from tho Tofua. : "(4) That the reason why the plaintiff was not employed by tho Union Steam Ship Company (who were his principal employers) was because of tho threat made by Irvine that if he were the job would be 'stuck up,' that is, that the men would strike if- the plaintiff were employed with tho other men of the union. "(5) That it is not proved that threats were made by Irvine to any other company that were employed the job would be 'stuck up.' I may have mv suspicions as to what tho foremen of the other companies knew, and what -they would have done, but on the evidence before me there is no proof that the plaintiff would not have been, employed by the other companies to such extent as a worker, not a regular follower of such a company, would have been employed Responsibility of Union. "(6) That the proper inference frorji all the. facts -is- that the .union at its stopwork meetings knew and approved of the attitude of Irvine toward the plaintiff, rind of his threat to the Union Steam Ship Company. Alternatively, and if it could not be held that the union expressly approved Irvine's attitude and actions, I think that the union is responsible for Irvine's actions as its agent. The rules of the union include among its objects rulo 3 (10), 'to reform abuses connected with waterside work.' That is general, and would include, I think, victimisation of any kind, or a breach of the traditional rules of conduct iin connection with waterside work, such as payment of a premium or bribe by one unionist to an employer in order to gain a preference of employment over another unionist."

His Honor then dealt with the courses of action' the union might have taken to deal with the position, but, said that one of these was .not a threat to employers to prevent the plaintiff from exercising his right to work., Irvine di(l not deny that it was his duty to see that each man got ,1 fair share of work. If Irvine wrongly exercised his discretion, then the union was responsible for his action. His Honor dealt with the argument that the union would riot ..lip. responsible because the union was incorporated solely for the purposes of the Act. He held that this argument had been disposed of by Mr. Justice Hosking in Gould's case. Assessment of Damages.

As to damages, tho plaintiff had .not been employed for a period of approximately 55 weeks, which at an average of £5 19s. 6d . would amount to £327. Tho plaintiff had averaged £5 19s 6d as a regular follower of tho Union Steam Ship Company. The Court had to consider how much the plaintiff could have reduced this by applying to other companies for work. On the cvidenco, tho damage could have been reduced. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff was not a .follower. of these other companies, und that they gave preference to their owq, men, His Honor thought that the maximum deduction should be one-third. This would lcavo a balance of £2lB. Any wages not paid on tho Port Napier and Tofua jobs were special damages, and they lull not been claimed.as such. They could not, therefore,'be allowed. Tho Court would not be justified in nssuming. that tho union would still provent the .plaintiff from working as » unionist, now that tho legal position had been ascertained No damages would therefore be awarded in respect of the future.

Judgment was given against both defendants jointly and severally for: £2lB, •with costs according to scale,, witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be fixed by tlio registrar. Tho plaintiff was allowed £2 2s in respect of bis affidavit of discovery.

At- the hearing Mr. Dickson appeared for the plaintiff. The defendants were represented by Mr. P. ,T. O'Eegan, of [Wellington, and Mr. Sullivan.