NO LEGAL PREFERENCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18398, 16 May 1934, Page 10

NO LEGAL PREFERENCE

WATERFRONT LABOR j CLAIM' AUAINST l. NION | , i (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night, j Wild her. mi amendment 'to one of J dm rules hi 'the Wellington Waterside; Workers' Union, purporting' to give; power to exclude a person from mem- i borship at the discretion ol ihe exoeu- ; live is jntra vires or not. was die substantial question rei-rd m a 'Use be-; foie Mr. Justice liced in tin- Gup’:cine ! Court to-day. The action ivas one in which William ; Henry Hargreaves'sought the assist-j nnce of the court to obtain admission | as a member of the defendant union, j He claimed in addition £SO damages for wrongful deprivation of employment. Mr, .Tames Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation, said the average ivaterside ivorkcr from January to the end of April Avon Id ea rn £2 lo £2 15s a week. Personal ability always had connection with earnings, but the ability lo get ivork depended a great deal upon the amount of ivork which the company that employed a man regularly had in hand at any particular period. 'There was no aivard or industrial agreement at the present time, except an understanding by the parties as to the rates of pay and conditions of employment. His Honor: Then from the union’s point of viciv there is nothing to prevent any man being employed whether he is a member of the union or not? Mr. Roberts: There is no legal preference, but I think I ought to say that oiving to the understanding ivhich exists, employers do, as a rule, give preference to our-members. 'The employers and the ivatersidc workers have an understanding that the industry cannot carry any more men. Legal argument ivas addressed to the court on the question of laiv, and at the conclusion of the case His Honor intimated that he ivould take time to consider his decision.