ASSAULT ON THE WHARF

Taranaki Daily News, 30 April 1931, Page 2

ASSAULT ON THE WHARF

WATERSIDES AND FOREMAN WAS NOT CALLED TO WORK SHIP. COMPLAINTS OF VICTIMISATION. On a charge of assaulting Oscar Aubrey Rixon at the port of New Plymouth on Friday, March 20, David Evans, a watersider, was convicted and discharged in the Police Court yesterday and ordered to pay witnesses’ expenses, 20s. ‘•'Though this affair did not come to anything in the way of fisticuffs,” said Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., “I may say straight away that I doubt very much whether witnesses were speaking the truth when they said Rixon had seemed as if he were going to strike.” Rixon, a foreman for Collett and Co., said that at 8 a.m. he went to the stand at the head of the Newton King wharf to call labour. Ho engaged two gangs. Afterwards he wrote on the board, “No further labour required today.” As he turned to go away Evans caught him by the lapel of the coat and asked why he had not been given a job. “There is no reason for you to ask that,” said Rixon. On a previous occasion Evans had wanted to fight him on a ship on which he had been given a job. Evans said the firm Rixon worked for was no good, that Rixon was a crawler and “a beauty to go preaching.” Evans then caught him again and swung him round, grabbed him by tbc throat and offered to fight. To Mr. A. A. Benuett (for Evans) : He had had instructions from his employers to pick up certain fnen to work the Northmoor. He denied he was “freezing Evans off the wharf.” His instructions were not to engage him that morning. DEEP-SEATED TROUBLE. “This was a deep-seated trouble," said Rixon, turning to the magistrate. “There was a go-slow policy on the Northmoor.” He had given Evans two hours' work the previous day. If he had a complaint there was a proper channel for it to go through. “Do,you admit Evans thought lie had a grievance against you? ’ asked counsel. “And that he wanted to discuss it with you?” .. „ “Not in a fighting attitude. “That is not an answer,” said counsel. Evans caught him by the lapel, continued Rixon. “And it was at that stage, that you turned round and raised both hands as though to strike him?” suggested counsel. „ “I never raised my hands. “You afterwards met O’Dea on the wharf and said, ‘By jove, Ted, when Evans put his hand on my shoulder I swung round to crack him one’?” ‘That is a deliberate lie.” “Wait a minute. There is a little more yet. And you said, ‘I could have cracked him because he did not have his hands up’?” “A deliberate lie." Rixon admitted that on several occasions the union secretary. Flood, had complained about his attitude to the men. “And that you asked them to do dangerous work?” “No. I never asked them to do anything I would not do myself.’ Counsel referred to trouble over a dangerous guy rope on a ship on which Evans had been working; Rixon had made the men work on. The preventer guy made the derrick quite safe, said Rixon. “Am I to understand," said counsel, ‘That because of some previous trouble you had made up your mind, not to engage Evans ?’ “Not for that ship.” He had orders to call'Evans only when they were short of men, “Did he know that?” “Not that I am aware of.’’ THOUGHT HE WOULD STRIKE. William Groombridge, head foreman for the Union Company, said that about 8 a.m. he saw Evans slew Rixon round. He thought Evans was going to strike; he had Rixon either by the throat or top of the coat. To Mr. Bennett: He was in the middle of the road, about 10 yards away from from the stand. “Have you ever received instructions not to employ a union man?” asked counsel. “No. The only time I have received instructions from the manager is when a man is suffering from ‘compensitis’ and has had about £5OO from the company to fix him up.” “Do you ever have trouble with men who think they should be employed?’ asked the magistrate. “Oh, yes.” “Is Rixon a fighting man?” “Not that I know. of. I’ve never seen him fight.” Opening for the defence, Mr. Bennett said unfortunately Rixon’s attitude at the port was one of disregard for the men’s safety and was provocative to the men. The union had complained and matters had been patched up previously without the necessity of going to court. If Rixon had told the truth iu the witness box that morning his treatment of Evans amounted to victimisation in its worst form —treatment that was contrary to the Act. He asked whether there was evidence of any assault, and, secondly, if there was an assault, whether it was not conynitted under serious provocation. Giving evidence, Evans said he was seeking employment when Rixon called for labour. He was not called, and when the call was over he walked to Rixon and asked why he did not get a job. Rixon would not answer. “You’re going to give me a freeze, are you?" said Evans. “That’s what l’m here for,” answered Rixon.

“And is that the usual attitude of the foremen engaging labour?” asked Mr. Bennett. “No.” “What do you call it?” “Bullying.” Rixon turned to walk away, whereupon Evans touched him on the arm and Rixon made as if to strike him. “Ob, don’t do that, Mr. Rixon,” said Evans. After further remarks, during which Evans called him a hypocrite, Rixon went to walk away. Evans then caught him by the lapel of the coat. He did not put his arms round Rixon’s neck. “There is one thing. I don’t crawl for a job,” said Rixon. Evans said he had had trouble with Rixon before, when he was acting as hatchman. There were words about the wav a rope should be tied. “And since then Rixon has never given vou a job?” said Mr. Bennett. “That is so.” He said he had been given jobs by Collopy, another foreman for the same company. “So that Collopy could not have received instructions not to engage you,” said counsel. To the senior sergeant: He was not looked upon as an agitator on the wharf. He had only stood tip for the safety of the men. He bad no grievance against Rixon over the previous incident. To Mr. Tate: He had been employed

the previous day to get out the gear for working the ship. It was the custom of the port to call on to the stand the men who had been at this work the previous day. To Mr. Bennett: Of the four men employed the day before in the preparatory work only one was engaged for the ship that day. He had been surprised- 'when he was not called. ■ Edmond O’Dea gave corroborative evidence. On his way to the.ship -Rixon overtook him. “By jove, Ted,” Rixon said, “when Evans put his hand on me I swung round to crack him one, but on second thoughts I thought it advisable not to.” He could have cracked him, Rixon added, as Evans was not defending himself. Horace Leonard Gilbert and Sydney secretary of the Watersiders’ Union, were other witnesses. Flood said that he had had to complain of Rixon’s attitude to the men. His union had instructed him to write to Rixon’s employers about the matter. Scott, Rixon’s senior, had seen him afterwards and asked him to see how .things went after that. He had agreed, but Rixon’s attitude had not improved in any way. 1 if the employers considered they should not be asked to engage a particular man the proper channel through which to notify the matter was the disputes committee, and this had not been done. Evans’ character would compare favourably with that of ally other man in New Plymouth, or any man on the waterfront. He did not drink. There was a general feeling of dissatisfaction with Rixon on the waterfront.

Giving his decision, the magistrate observed that a great deal had been said in evidence about Rixon after Rixon had been eross-examined and was unable to reply. He was impressed by the fact that Evans had not been before the court before, but he felt quite satisfied an assault had been committed. It was not necessary to strike a man for that; it could be done by merely holding a man by the coat. “I have some difficulty in fudging the equity of the matter,” proceeded Mr. Tate. “This man seems to think he had a grievance because he did not get a job, but he did not go the right way about it.”