EXPULSION FROM UNION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27518, 12 October 1950, Page 8

EXPULSION FROM UNION

Former Watersider CrossExamined CLAIM FOR DAMAGES PA AUCKLAND, Oct. 11. The former Auckland watersiders’ vice-president, Noel Donaldson, would not return to waterfront work even if the Supreme Court should declare his expulsion invalid. Giving evidence in his damages claim today, Donaldson said the section of watersiders he now opposed could make life unbearable for him. Donaldson is claiming £ 1000 general damages from the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union and a court invalidation of his expulsion last June. Mr Justice Callan is presiding. The union's counsel, Mr T. A. Gresson, cross-examining Donaldson, said: “For some years there have been two policy groups in the union—militants and moderates —and in your opinion the militants were associated with the Communists? ” Witness: Yes. Mr Gresson: For that reason you oppose the militants? Witness: No. I maintain that militancy is not the only foundation on which the Labour movement was built.

Mr Gresson: Till the middle of 1949 you and Mr Barnes were in agreement about the policy of the union?

Witness: I always tried to carry out the national and local policy. The Kingston Letter

Mr Gresson, referring to the national presidential elections, in which Donaldson and Barnes were candidates, suggested. that Donaldson intended using the Kingston letter against Barnes in the campaign. Witness: No, but I knew that the question of disaffiliation with the Labour Party was coming up at the conference in Wellington in December. I intended using the letters there. Counsel: You complain to this court that you have been charged without notice. You planned to put Mr Parnes “ on the spot.” Donaldson said that when he reached Wellington he found that he had taken only one letter—Kingston’s. He endeavoured to get a copy of the Fawcett letter. He made a call from the Waterfront Commission’s office in Wellington. Mr Gresson: I suggest you had the letter with you in Wellington and that you asked Jones to find out whether Barnes was going to take action against Johnson. Witness: I deny that. Donaldson added that the letters had. not been photographed or cyclostyled before he went to Wellington. On his return he found the Fawcett letter at his home. “ Under Allen Direction ” Questioned about a pamphlet he had sent in May, 1950, on his suspension by the Auckland branch, the plaintiff agreed that he had said it was against his principles to take legal action against the union, and that he had expressed confidence in the judgment of his fellow workers. He had associated Barnes with the Communists and their “ stooges,” and alleged that certain union officials were subservient to the Communist Party. He had referred to “leaders of our union acting under alien political direction.” Mr Gresson: Which of your national leaders do you consider to be acting under Communist directioh? Plaintiff: Have I to answer that question, your Honor? His Honor:' Oh, yes. Plaintiff: I would say Mr Barnes and also Mr Drennan, who had been a national officer. His Honor: How can it be consistent that you supported the branch remit on disaffiliation from the Labour Party, although you did not approve of it, but you considered using the two letters that might be used against your president?

Plaintiff: For years there has been opposition shown to the pnembers of our union who support the Labour Party. At this conference I was going to show to the councillors in supporting the remit on disaffiliation that inside our union there are groups supporting the Labour Party, but I was going to suggest that others inside the union supported the National Party. However, I had only one letter, and I wanted the key letter. Raymond Seton Belsham, a waterside worker, called on a subpoena, said that at the stop-work meeting on March 20, which suspended the plaintiff. he rose to a point of order and said that a suspension required a special meeting. Barnes ruled him out of order.

To Mr Gresson, witness said the resolution of appreciation to Barnes was carried unanimously at the stopwork meeting. The plaintiff was present; Policy differences had existed in the Auckland branch for three or four years, and by the end of 1949 the plaintiff was recognised as being in one group and Barnes in the other. Anyone who opposed Barnes was described as a moderate, and if he persisted he was subject to strong abuse from the chair. Re-examined, witness said he was sick and tired of Barnes placing his own interpretation on rules to achieve his own ends at meetings. Tally Clerk’s Evidence

Wyvern Shafto Neale Johnson, a tally clerk, appearing under subpoena, said that last November before the general election he heard that Barnes had been associated with Mr Kingston in the campaign for Ponsonby. He repeated this story to a waterfront gang, and later received a message from Barnes calling on him to be in Barnes’s office at 8 a.m. next day to apologise. He saw. Barnes on the wharf next morning, but did not go to his office. Barnes demanded an unconditional written apology. Witness said he was going to do nothing.

Witness later received a letter from the solicitor, Mr Fawcett. Before this came witness had seen the plaintiff and also Mr Kingston. Witness replied on November 28 to Mr Fawcett’s letter enclosing a letter from Mr Kingston. When he saw the plaintiff, he told him what had happened and asked if the plaintiff could advise him. The plaintiff could give no advice. Witness went and saw Mr Kingston, who drafted a letter, giving witness two copies. One he sent to Mr Fawcett and the other he wanted to keep for himself. However, he gave it a day or two later to the plaintiff, who said he would like it. Witness gave it to the plaintiff, because the plaintiff was an executive 'member and could make known the existence of the letter among the men who had heard his original conversation with Barnes. To Mr Gresson, witness said he went to see the plaintiff because he knew him to be an opponent of Barnes. Witness wanted the letter to stifle any proceedings. Bryan Hislop Kingston, a solicitor, said he was the National Party candidate for Ponsonby at the last general election. He spent each afternoon in house-to-house canvassing, retiring about 5.15 each day to the Ponsonby Club Hotel, where his organiser introduced him to working men. He had had some acquaitance with Barnes for about 20 years, and was on Christian name terms during his campaign. He met Barnes in the Ponsonby Club Hotel. On the first occasion he met Barnes he had had not more than three or four glasses of beer, this being his limit, as he did not want anyone to think he was touting. On this first occasion Barnes had had something to drink. Barnes had been to a watersider’s funeral. He wished witness every success and said he would do everything to facilitate witness’s return. He was convinced Labour was going out. Witness said he met Barnes about three weeks later, before the election. Barnes introduced him to a fellow watersider. Both Barries and himself were perfectly sober. Barnes was more outspoken than before. There was nothing confidential in the conversation with Barnes, and witness gathered that the opinion Barnes expressed was concurred in by his friend, whom he believed to be a Mr McNamara. The court adjourned.