A UNION ADVOCATE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8984, 18 July 1907, Page 3

A UNION ADVOCATE.

DISTRUSTING THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT. THE ORIGIN OF THE CASE. At the Arbitration Court this morning a case was heard against a drainage contractor. Instead of being prosecuted by cither of the Inspectors of Awards, the aggressive was taken by Mr A. Patterson., representing the General Labourers' Union. His Honor, who had on a previous occasion in the session asked a similar question, asked why the Union was conducting the case, instead of the Labour Department. It was highly desirable that the inspectors should carry out this sort of work. Mr Patterson said this was a difficult question to answer. Tho Union had a perfect right under the Act to bring any case it liked, and, having the facts in its possession, it was thought that the Union could handle the case itself. His Honor : I suppose one of the chief considerations is that if the Union wins the case it gets the fines P Mr Patterson: Nothing of the sort. We did not even think of that. His Honor : Well, that is the suggestion you at once lay yourselves open to. Mr Patterson said that on various occasions the Union had reported cases to the Labour Department but had had no satisfaction from it, though the Union was at the time satisfied that breaches of the awards had been committed, and though the inspectors had admitted that a breach hp # d been committed. The Union felt that it had" the chance of being disappointed if it appealed to the Department, and that if that happened, and it subsequently brought the case iter-lf , the Court would say that it could not support a case that the inspectors had not been willing to take up. Later, when Mr Patterson demanded the production of some books of interest in the case, he request-d the Court to make <in order ,in support of his request. His H<7ncr ] B^'d that that was one of the advantages of the conduct of the cases by the inspectors. Thpy had the # right to ; ask to see fh° book at any time, and to take what th"y want'd from them. The same case had other interesting developments. Mr Patterson called one witness, and on examination found that the evidence he had to give was contrary to his intereste, so muoh so that he lost the case therein. Then, when the case was over, this witness and four others who hfd be n ;i in attendance on the Court for the purpose of giving evidence, asked that they should be given their expanses as Tepresented by Loss of work for three days. Mr Pa+terpon objected to the application. It was owing to the nature of the statements made by the men. he K?id. that the case was hmueht. pnd the man that he called Ead not fallowed the lines >c expected. Each of the men, however, denied that he was ever interviewed by anyone in the interests of the Union in respect of this case, or that he knew anything of the ™se- before he was summoned as a witness. Mr Patterson admitted that he himself had not interviewed the men. He had understood that a man named Stoke, who was unfortunately away on the West Coast, had done so; and it wjv? <v" r ingr to what he had reported to rte Union that action was taken. St/vke was a man who had not received f".ll pay, and who had reported to the TTnion upon the methods of his employer in navins the men. One of *he wi+n esses stated that «toY« had been discharged, and being 'Us affected, ha*! hnncc about the iob. The emr>loypr. Mr Moore, had told him if Tie did not vo nway and lep-e the men alone until dinner-time, V.o would give him in charee. Stoke did not p-o. and the einrrfover sent for a constable, and asked him to arrest q+o.i-*. The officer did not do so, but +©W him to move on. None of the men had anvthin<r to do with Stoke. Each of the witne e sp« denied having V<vi i"+°rviewed by Stoke. Mr Flesher. for the employer. 6a id t*>at pr a matter of f*o+. S+^ke wais difi-"haro-ed from "hi" ™b f° r drunkpnnere. He had even challenged the boss to The Court, which bad already ordered the Union to pay the costs of the case, made a further order for the payment of 16s. or two days' wages to the four men who bad not given evidence.