VICTIMISATION CHARGE

NZ Truth, 7 June 1924, Page 7

VICTIMISATION CHARGE

Facts Not Proved

Man Changes Job, And Trouble

Follows.

It was with a serious complaint that William Orr Matthews brought an action against Arthur Hellaby, of the well-known firm of Auckland butchers, alleging that undue influence was brought to bear on officials at the Corporation abattoirs, as the result of which Matthews lost his job with the latter. The case was heard before his Honor Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury m the Supreme Court, Lawyer Singer appearing for the plaintiff and Lawyer Towle for the defendant.

Plaintiff's story was to the effect thnt he was employed by the defendant n?m as a niter at their abattoirs, ft? thaFho left for a Job at the Corporation abattoirs at a higher salary. Whereas ho was paid £4 17s weekly by Hellaby's. he was paid at the rate of £6 Os lOd m the now job, and he sued Arthur Hellaby for £750 damagos on tho irround that he, without justification intimidated Robert W. Rugg. manager of the Municipal abattoirs, and coerced him Into causing harm to the pfaintlff. On tho first day of his new job tho plaintiff said that he «aw defendant at the abattoirs, and next day he wa» told by tho clerk of works that he would have to bo put off "When he asked the reason tho clerk of workrt told him that he could not have friction with Hollaby's, therefore he would have to finish up. Air. Rugg added that if he had known plaintiff had come from Mollaby'a ho would not have started him. Rugg also said that Hellaby had been complaining of tho Council tuklng »omo of his best men. Subsequently Kugg hukgostcd that If tho plaintiff saw Hcllaby

he might get his job bnck. This plaintiff did, and saw the defendant m company with the chief engineer. Mathews opened the conversation by asking what was the cause of all the trouble. Hellaby said: "What do you mean?" Plaintiff replied that Hellaby had been over to see Rugg, and m collusion with him had been the direct cause of his (Matthews') dismissal. To this Hellaby replied that he did not mean him to be dismissed. Matthews informed Hellaby that that had just happened, and that Rugg did not want him on the premises because he was the cause of friction with Hellaby's. When Hellaby was told that Rugg had said he was complaining at his men being taken away, he replied that he could not have Rugg taking his men away. Then Hellaby said that he knew nothing about Matthews leaving, as ho had not given notice, but plaintiff replied that he had given two days' notice, which he considered ample seeing that one man had left Hellaby's on two hours' notice. The • defendant said that he had always found plaintiff's work quite satisfactory. Hellaby also said that he was sorry that Matthews had left, stating that the abattoirs was only a temporary job, but the worst of these temporary jobs was that they always paid more and attracted men. Matthews replied that this was the year 1924,- and surely he could leave and go where he pleased without being victimise/1. Hellaby replied that his firm could not compete with the Corporation m the labor market and could not afford to lose mqn. Matthews replied that Hellaby'a should give their men more encouragement m the way of wages if they wanted them to.stay and that they must expect competition. Plaintiff also said that any man had the right to sell his labor m the best market, and this was not the days of serfdom. On returning to Rugg and relating what had taken place, plaintiff was told that he would have to leave anyhow. Matthews also said that he had petitioned the City Council claiming three months' wages but tho Council repudiated responsibility. The union secretary had also been approached, but, after interviewing the abattoir officials, he refused to do anything but write to the Council. Robert W. Rugg. m evidence, could not corroborate the statements made by tho plaintiff as to conversations which he had alleged took plnco m his presence. Witness had nothing to do with Matthews' work. Plaintiff was not threatened or Intimidated by Hellaby. }

Edward Bleazard. who was clerk of works at the abattoirs, rnvid that Rugg came to him m; reference to Matthews and flaid: "Wo wapt to kedp friendly relations with Hellaby'B. Would It be worth while to ask him to reconsider his employment?"

At the conclusion of tho plaintiffs case counsel contended there was no case to answer, and the Judge concurred that there waa nothing to go before tho jury. -Lawyer Singer then elected to take a non-suit, which was accordingly recorded, with costs for tho defendant.