DAMAGES CLAIM

Southland Times, Issue 21072, 2 May 1930, Page 7

DAMAGES CLAIM

WATERSIDER’S TROUBLES.

ACTION AGAINST UNION

ALLEGED VICTIMIZATION,

(Per United Press Association.)

Auckland, May 1. Allegations that he had been victimized by the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union were made in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr Justice Smith by Thomas Moylan, otherwise known as Thomas Miles, the “walking delegate” of the union. Robert Irvine was joined with the Waterside Workers’ Union as defendant. Mr O’Regan, of Wellington, and Mr Sullivan appeared fur defendants and Mr Dickson for nlaintiff.

Moylan claimed damages at the rate of £6 a week from March 23, 1929, to date of judgment, also £3OO because he was not able to obtain any further employment as a waterside worker and £2OO general damages. Moylan alleged that practically daily from March 25, 1929 until the date of the issue of the writ, the union and its servants or agents, particularly Irvine, had refused unlawfully to permit any master or employer to employ him. He further alleged that in April '929 there had been interference by the union with his contract of service and that Irvine induced or caused the employers to discharge him before his service was lawfully terminated.

A complete denial of the allegations was made by the union and Irvine. “It is a strong commentary on the brotherhood of man as enunciated by the union,” said Mr Dickson in his address to the court. “Plaintiff has virtually been declared 'black’ by members.”

Counsel traced the sequence of events commencing with a letter written on March 24 by plaintiff's wife to the foreman of the Union Steamship Company and enclosing a £1 note. That was regarded bv the union as a breach of its regulations. Plaintiff denied any knowledge of the letter until later, although it was signed Paddy Miles. Plaintiff had the greatest possible difficulty in getting any evidence, continued Mr Dickson. Captain Anderson and Captain Fox took up the attitude that they did not want to be mixed up in disputes between the union and its members. “I have been compelled to subpoena these two gentlemen,” counsel added. “They don’t desire to take sides in this case.” At the time the trouble commenced Miles had savings amounting to £240, but that money was gradually eaten up, said counsel, and plaintiff and his wife and family were now dependent on 13/- a week charitable aid. “The vendetta was continued in spite of appeals to the union,” said counsel. Captain H. A. Anderson, wharf superintendent of the Union Company, said he had telephoned Irvine on several occasions that he was going to engage Miles and the reply was, “If you do the ship will bn stuck up.” Several times after April 15, 1929, the same rep’" was given. To Mr O’Regan, witness said he had reason to believe Irvine was inciting the men. Asked to give his reasons, he said he preferred not to answer the question as it might affect his relations with the union. His Honour: If Mr O’Regan presses the question you must answer. Mr O’Regan said it was important _to have witness answer because the contention for the defence was that the watersiders refused to work with plaintiff and Irvineused his efforts to placate the men and induce them to sink their objections. Further, it was contended that plaintiff had been defiant and truculent and had made an amicable settlement impossible. His Honour: It is a most astounding suggestion that the union can damage Captain Anderson.

Witness: I am positive of it. They can give me the go-slow policy times out of number. I did not come here of my own free will to give evidence. Other witnesses gave evidence for plaintiff.

Mr O'Regan for the defence said the beginning of the unfortunate position in which Miles found himself was a letter written last March to O’Brien. It might. have been much better for all concerned if O’Brien had said nothing about it, but he flew into high dudgeon and made public property of it. As a result. Miles became very unpopular with his fellow workers. Irvine tried to quieten the men and to get. Miles to come along and give an explanation to the union officials, but he refused to do so until very late in the case. The rank and file of the union did not accept Miles’ explanation that he did not. write the letter and then the officials could not induce them to work with him. The officials could not be held responsible for a position they did their best to put right. After some evidence for the union had been heard, the case was adjourned.