VICTIMISATION ALLEGED

Taranaki Daily News, 3 May 1930, Page 11

VICTIMISATION ALLEGED

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ CLAIM

DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM UNION.

COURT RESERVES ITS. DECISION.

By Telegraph- —Press Association.

Auckland, Last Night.

The claim for damages by a waterside worker who alleged victimisation against his union was further heard by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiff was Thomas Moylan, commonly known as Paddy Miles (Mr. Dickson), a member of the Waterside Workers’ Union. He took action against the union and its “walking delegate,” Robert Irvine (Mr. O’Regan and Mr. Sullivan) on the ground that the defendants had entered into a conspiracy to prevent him from earning a livelihood pii the waterfront. He claimed damages at the rate of £6 a week from March 23, 1929, to the date of judgment, £3OO damages for loss suffered and £2OO general damages. Mr. Dickson continued his cross-ex-amination of Robert Irvine, who said that Miles had refused to come before th-' officers of the union and tell his story. If Miles had done so it would have made the task of the executive in getting men to work with Miles much easier. He had told the men that they were wrong in. taking up the attitude of not working with Miles. His Honour: Then I take it you dissociate yourself from that attitude of the men?

.Witness: Absolutely; right throughout the piece. His Honour: Did you know that if Miles were employed the whole body of men would refuse to work with him? “Oh, no, only individual men,” witness said. “We shared the popular opinion about Miles’ action in sending money by letter, but he accepted the statement that his wife wrote it.”

The president of the Waterside Workers’ Union, Charles Stephen Morris, was the next witness. “As president of the union.. I have always stood for order and discipline and the growth of the port,” declared witness. If Miles had come to the executive witness believed that he could have eased the position for him. Mrs. Miles saw witness at his house once and Miles twice. Mrs. Miles wrote, a letter of apology under his direction and accepted responsibility for the original letter that caused the trouble.

After hearing further evidence the judge reserved his decision.