UNWARRANTED DISMISSAL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3034, 8 May 1912, Page 61

UNWARRANTED DISMISSAL.

DAMAGES AWARDED. (Fhom Oub Own Correspondent.) . GREYMOUTH, May 4. A decision, of importance to employer* and trade unions was delivered in tbo Supreme Court here yesterday morning. At the session in March last Mr Justice Deruiiston had before him the case in which William E. Blanche sued the Greymouth Wharf Labourers' Union and six members thereof for £2OO damages. The facts of the case were somewhat wi- ( usual. The complaint of the plaintiff was that the defendants illegally conspired and combined to compel his employer, tbo Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand, to dispense with his services as an overseer, although the company was perfectly satisfied with him, and that ho was in consequence dismissed. The defence- was a general denial, and an affirmative allegation that if the facts alleged by the plaintiff to liave been done by the defendants were done, they were justified, inasmuch as the plaintiff frequently bore a domineering attitude and insulting manner towards the members of the defendant union, who were working under the plaintiff's supervision, so that many of such workers found it impossible to work under the plaintiff's supervision, and accordingly made complaint to this effect to the executive of the defendant union. with the result that at a meeting. of it the following resolution was carried : " That, owing to the domineering attitude and insulting manner adopted by-M* Blanche towards the members of this union while at work, we hereby give the company 48 hours to have him removed."' This request the manager of the . Union Company declined at first, asking that » deputation be appointed to see him and lay a specific charge against Blanche. The deputation appointed declined to give specific instances. In . the circumstances the manager gave what the court regarded as the only possible reply —that in his opinion they had no grounds of complaint, —but added that if they thought they had, he was prepared to.. transfer Blanche to another shift (he had till t[hen always had the night shift), and also to give instructions which he thought would prevent friction. This offer was refused, the deputation saying that, this .was. in fact, promotion. He was told-that trouble would arise if Blanche was not removed. The union held another meeting, and decided to adhere to the original demand, and so advised the Union Company. "On receipt of this letter," runs the judgment, "the manager notified the plaintiff that he was not to go on shift that night, and the following day diemissed him, paying him a month's salary. The manager says he so acted from, former experience,- - and for fear of trouble. There can be no question as to the fact that the action of the union showed a total absence of any notion of fairplay or sense of justice. The man was accused, tried, condemned, and sentenced at a meeting called without notao* of any such business. lam satisfied that the threat conveyed to, and intended, to be understood by the company's manager, was a threat of trouble by the refusal of the men to work under Blanche'on the termination of the 48 hours' notice. Thi# was clearly an illegal threat, and there? fore the company, having been induced or coerced by it to dismiss the plaintiff, and thereby*to cause him to lose what was not only the prospect but the certainty of continuous employment, in my opinion gives him a cause of action and entitled him to such damages as he may have thereby incurred, which I assess at £75." Costs on the lowest scale wei» granted.