CLAIM AGAINST UNION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21316, 18 October 1932, Page 11

CLAIM AGAINST UNION

BUTCHER AWARDED DAMAGES LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT METHOD ADOPTED BY DELEGATE Damages amounting to £lO4 8s and costs £l2 8s were awarded to James Farrell, a butcher, by Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in the Otahuhu Magistrate's Court yesterday, in a reserved judgment in an action brought by Farroll against Ivan Carter, an employee at the West field Freezing Works, and tho Auckland Abattoir Assistants' and Freezing Works Employees' Union. Plaintiff claimed £3OO damages on the ground that he had been deprived of permanent employment through the action of Carter, a union delegate, and the union generally. The magistrate said that plaintiff bad been employed as a slaughterman at Hellaby's works for about a year prior to being employed at tho West field Freezing Works as a boner and trimmer. Hellaby's works had been declared "black" by the defendant union in July, 1931. No evidence bad been offered as to how plaintiff came to be employed and remained working at Hellaby's in view of the union's declaration.. Dismissal of Plaintiff On August 10 the defendant Carter, a boner and delegate of the boners at the Westfield works, bad interviewed Mr. Cooper, plaintiff's employer, and told him that ho and the other boners would not work for Cooper if ho continued to employ plaintiff, whom they considered to be "black" on account of his previous slaughtering employment at Hellaby's, said the magistrate. Plaintiff had explained to Carter that bo was a member of tho Slaughtermen's Union at Wellington and could provide a "clearance" from the Gear Works there. It was admitted frankly by Carter that nothing would avail the plaintiff in view of the decision of the boners not to work with him. In consequence of the threat by the boners and their delegate the plaintiff was dismissed from his employment on August 10. Mr. Cooper had said in evidence that he was afraid to continue to employ plaintiff at boning and trimming, as the work had to go on continuously. Position of the Union Under the rule of the union a delegate's duties, among others, was to "attend to wages and other'disputes in tho works and report same to the secretary." It, was not suggested that the delegate ever did report any dispute to the secretary, and in this oase the report was made to the secretary's ofiice by plaintiff. It was the recognised practice for the delegate to settle disputes similar to the one in question. The evidence was perfectly frank on the point that plaintiff could entertain no hope of continuing in his employment. Mr. Levien said there was no question in his mind that the defendant, Carter, was the agent of the union with power to settle the disputo concerning plaintiff. In these circumstances. Mr. Levien found Carter was liable in damages. Neither the secretary nor any members or officials of the union had such a power as Carter under the rules. Concluding, the magistrate said the evidence entitled him to find that Carter was entitled to settle the dispute, but, that the union was, in effect,, party and privy to the improper method adopted by the delegate. Carter was not. only expressly authorised by the rules to settle the dispute, but was impliedly authorised by the attitude of the union as expressed in its minutes. The union might not have contemplated its delegate settling the present dispute in an actionable manner. Judgment would, therefore, be entered against Carter and the union.