UNION SUED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23966, 16 May 1941, Page 10

UNION SUED

TROUBLE AT MINE PATRIOTIC LEVY SEQUEL JURY AWARDS DAMAGES (Of .) HAMILTON, Thursday Further evidence was heard in the Supreme Court at Hamilton to-day before Mr. Justice Johnston and a jury in the case in which Matthew Gardner and Gordon Partis, formerly miners of Pukemiro, sought to recover £282 and £;sio respectively Irom the Northern Miners' Union as damages for loss of employment. Mr, J. P. Strang appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. P. W. Schramm represented the defendant union. Evidence was given yesterday that at a meeting of the workers at the Pukemiro colliery on June 25 it was decided on a show of hands to contribute a day's pay to patriotic purposes. At a meeting held next day the resolution was confirmed by a majority. Iho plaintiffs objected to the deduction being made from their wages, and members of the union resolved not to work with them until they paid. As a result, the plaintiffs stated they had to seek employment elsewhere. .John Brownley, deputv-mine manager. Pukemiro, said many of the workers had promised contributions prior to the combined appeal being made, and these donations were made independently of the union's appeal. Many people objected to making a second contribution, although eventually some of them paid. Men's Attitude to Objectors

The union officials told him, witness continued, that the majority of the men refused to work with the objectors until they paid the contribution. Gardner and Partis were. good workers. If they had gone into the mine, the other men would not have done so.

At the conclusion ol the plaintiffs' case. Mr. Sell ram 111 applied for a nonsuit on the ground that no cause of action had been shown. The plaintiffs, lie said, had not been dismissed, and the position they found themselves in was due to their own freewill and stubbornness in refusing to carry out the wishes of the majority. Mr. Strang contended that the point at issue was whether the union acted to protect its own interests, or whether it acted for the purpose of unlawfully interfering with the rights of others. The non-suit point was reserved. Giving evidence for the defence, George Lawson, secretary of the Pukemiro branch of the union, said that, following the appeal for the Sick and Wounded Fund, it was suggested that the union members might like to contribute. A meeting was called, and it was agreed without dissent to contribute a day's pay. The total contribution was then' guaranteed by the president and himself, and when it was learned there were objectors a second was held to confirm the resolution. Eight members dissented, including the plaintiffs. It was further resolved not to work with the dissentients until they paid the levy. Union President's Evidence

To Mr. Strang, witness said the plaintiffs could resume work at Pukemi ro if they agreed to abide by majority rule.

John David Garrick, miner, of Pukemiro, said he was president of the Pukerniro union at the time of the trouble. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and said the plaintiffs were voluntarily unemployed. There was 110 dictatorship about the union meetings. Every man was given a fair hearing. The vote in favour of the levy was carried unanimously, but there were eight dissentients at the second meeting, when the confirmatory motion was considered. Out of 210 who voted on the proposal that the union members should not work with the plaintiffs, 47 voted against the motion. If tepid swimming baths were wanted, the majority could oblige the minority to contribute toward the cost, witness said. If the plaintiffs had explained that they had financial difficulties the union would have met them and let them pay in instalments. However. 110 request was made. His Honor: Do you sincerely believe that the union has these wide powers over the private affairs of its members ? —Yes.

His Honor: Tf you are wise, yon had better get further instructions on the matter. Mr. Schramm will probably advise von. " A Novel Proposition " "The question is narrowed down as to whether the union was justified in taking the action that it did to protect its own interests, or whether the union's intention was to injure the plaintiffs," said His Honor, in summing up. The president and secretary of the union had stated that the union had the right to take from tlie wageearner, as long as a resolution to this effect was passed by the majority. _ . This was a novel proposition to him, continued His Honor, and was not authorised by law. If this claim was right, then the union had greater rights than the Government. The jury found that the defendant union was not justified in the action it took, and awarded €25 general damages to <>aeh plaintiff, special damages to Gardner, and £6O special damages to Partis.

The entry of judgment was deferred pending legal argument.