NO DISRESPECT INTENDED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIX, Issue 21992, 18 June 1941, Page 8

NO DISRESPECT INTENDED

Non-Appearance In Court Statement .By Union Official (P.A.) WELLINGTON, June 17. In the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon, Mr F. P. Walsh, president of the New Zealand Seamen’s Union, asked permission to make a statement. Mr Justice Tyndall asked its nature and Mr Walsh explained that, to his astonishment, he had seen in a newspaper a report of a statement by Mr H. Bishop reflecting on Mr Walsh’s conduct towards the Court. Mr Tyndall said that the Court would hear Mr Walsh provided he made no reference to the subject matter of the appeal last Friday, because Mr Walsh had his opportunity to appear then. The Court must not be used as a vehicle for the furtherance of any private dispute. Mr Bishop said that he might be able to shorten proceedings and explained that his remarks on Friday were made without any consultation with the employers he was representing. He was expressing to the Court what he felt was discourtesy from Mr Walsh. wanted to dissociate the employers from the statement. Representation of Union Mr Bishop explained that after Mr Justice Tyndall had stated that the fact that there had been a conversation between Mr Walsh and Mr Bishop was entirelj’ the result of the Court’s action and the Cdurt took full responsibility, he had asked the Registrar to ring Mr Walsh and ascertain, if anyone was representing the Seamen's Union. Mr Walsh said that the last thing he desired was that the Impression should go abroad that he had held the Court up to ridicule. He felt hurt that he should be charged with holding the Court in disrespect. Mr Bishop, on Friday, had said that he made his statement with full knowledge that the newspapers were represented, which indicated that in his (Mr Walsh’s) absence, the field was open and Mr Bishop was entitled to say what he liked. Mr Justice Tyndall: I think that is a totally wrong' impression. In the first place, you did not hear Mr Bishop and the manner in which he addressed the Court.

His Honour said: he was not questioning the accuracy of the report. There was <a manner of addressing the Court, he said, and one could get an impression from that manner which might be absent from a newspaper article.

Mr Walsh proceeded to refer to the report having been sent through the Press Association, but his Honour said the Court was not interested in the newspaper responsibility. Telephone Conversation

Mr Walsh explained that he had not dealt with Mr Bishop in the case in any way. The whole of his negotiations had been with the secretary of the Employers' Federation. It was true that Mr Bishop and he had spoken on the telephone. He had told Mr Bishop that he was not dealing with him in the matter and had hung up the receiver. He repeated what he had said when Mr Bishdp rang again. He had said in the early stages of the dispute that it was not the Intention of the union to refer the matter to the Court as the union was of the opinion that it had nothing to do with the Court. The dispute was over a private agreement made outside the Court and he realised all the time that it was not legally binding. It was not the union’s intention to come into the case. He thought that- Mr Bishop hpd made an unfair, untruthful, and unfounded attack on him.

Mr Bishop said that he fat he had not been treated with courtesy bv Mr Walsh, and that feeling was reflected in anything he said about Mr Walsh. It was in explanation why the union was not represented and not with any desire to make a personal attack on Mr Walsh that he had spoken. He accepted Mr Walsh’s statement that he did not wish to treat the Court with contempt and Mr Walsh’s assurance that he did not Intend any discourtesy towards him. They could now regard the matter as being disposed of satisfactorily to both parties. Cause of Discussion “I have been asked by the respondents to tell the Cdurt whv they are not represented.” said Mr Bishop, addressing the Court on Friday. “I don’t propose to do that, because it would amount to contempt of Court. "It was indicated to me two or three days ago that it did not matter what action the appellants took; the union would not appear and it did not matter very much as far as it was concerned what the Court did. The reply to that, of course, was that the appellants would go on. If there wire any suggestions regarding an adjournment or discussions they could be considered, but there were no approaches for anv adjournment or any further discussion”