CLAIM AGAINST UNION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21292, 20 September 1932, Page 12

CLAIM AGAINST UNION

£3OO DAMAGES SOUGHT J I' SEQUEL TO DISMISSAL 1 •. . , ALLEGATIONS BY BUTCHER An action for £3OO damages brought by James Farrell, butcher, of Otahuhu, against the Auckland Abattoir Assistants' and Freezing Works Employees' Union, and Ivan Carter, nn employee at the Westfield Freezing Works, a delegate of tho union, wns heard in the Magistrate's Court, Otahuhu, before Mr. F. H. Lovien, S.M., yesterday. In his statement of claim plaintiff stated that ho was employed for sonio time in August, 1932, by F. Cooper, a contractor, at tho Westfield Freezing Works. While f.o employed he was in receipt of wages averaging £4 18s a week. Plaintiff alleged that about August 10 tho union,'by its delegate, Ivan Carter, notified Cooper that if ho continued to employ plaintiff the butchers would strike and refuse to kill. Plaintiff allogcd that in consequence of the threat Cooper was induced to break his contract of employment with plaintiff and dismissed him. Plaintiff claimed £29 8s damages on account of loss of wages from August 10 and £270 12s ns damages in respect of loss of employment. Frank Cooper said he was u boning contractor at Westfield Freezing \tyn-ks and on August 8 ho started plaintiff. On August 10 the defendant, Carter, approached witness and said the men would not work with plaintiff as they considered him " black" as ho had worked lit Hellaby's works, where there had boon a trade disputo last year. Witness told plaintiff to go and get his " ticket"—his clearance which would entitle him to work. Plaintiff came back later and said ho could not get a ticket. Carter told witness there had been a meeting of the men and had decided not to work with plaintiff. Witness "put off" plaintiff to avoid trouble, as it was his busy season. Had there been no interruption, plaintiff would have been employed for the season, had his work proved satisfactory. His earnings for four and a-half days a week would iiave been £3 lis. Plaintiff in his evidence said he knew nothing of the trouble at Hellaby's when he came to work there. He was a member of a recognised trade union when he came from Wellington. On August 10 he was informed of the men's attitude toward him. Witness explained the circumstances under which ho came to work at Hellaby's, but Cooper told him he would have to finish that night. On the following Saturday he saw Carter, who advised him to see Mr. Sill, tho union secretary. The latter said ho could not give any clearance.

Counsel for defendants said it was admitted that Carter was the delegate for the boning department of this works, but under the rules of the union he was there to attend to wage and other disputes arising from awards and conditions of labour. It was not admitted that Carter could involve the union in any such illegal action as was apparently contemplated by the section of men he spoke for.

William Edward Sill, the union secretary, said no representations had been made to him regarding Farrell by any official at the works. He did not intercede when Farrell approached him as he had had a similar experience once before when the men concerned in the dispute told him to mind his own business. Ivan Carter said ho did not know Farrell previously. Some men complained that Farrell had worked at Hcllaby's and he had called a meeting. He had not discussed the position with any other official. The magistrate reserved his decision.