SHIP’S COOK TAKES ACTION V. UNION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17880, 23 June 1926, Page 10

SHIP’S COOK TAKES ACTION V. UNION.

ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY IS NOW CHARGED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, June 22. A ship’s cook, John James Stuart, who was discharged over a dispute with a fireman about the quality of some milk, at Greymouth, claimed £SOO damages and other recompense, making a total of £667. in the Supreme Court, from the Wellington Seamen's Union and the secretary,-Mr Young. The allegation was that defendants illegally conspired and combined with others to induce or. com pel the shipping company to determine the contract with plaintiff, and further that they insisted on the crew taking part in an unlawful strike. The defence denied the conspirac3\ and said that they were not responsible for plaintiff’s discharge. The dispute was between the members of the crew. Mr Young was later asked to use his influence to re-open the dispute, with a view to the reinstatement of plaintiff, but there was no official connection of the union or the secretary. Mr Mazengarb, for plaintiff, said he W'as cook-proyidore of the s.s. Tees. A fireman named Graham at Greymouth raised a dispute that the milk had water in it. A disturbance followed in which Graham struck plaintiff. Proceedings for assault against Graham were dismissed and the firemen refused to take the ship to sea if. the cook remained on board. A temporary truce was arranged to enable the vessel to proceed to Wellington, the cook proceeding overland. Conferences were held and the captain of the Tees gave notice to Graham, considering him the cause of the trouble. He refused pressure to sign him on again. The captain was informed by the assistantsecretary of the union that no crew could be supplied, and the vessel was held up for fourteen days. Plaintiff gave evidence as to his own part in the affair. Cross-examined by Mr O’Regan as to whether he had not known that Mr Young had not approved of the action taken at Greymouth. he said he did not know whether he did or not. “You’re a man of means, aren’t you,” asked Mr O’Regan. “The first I’ve heard of it,” replied witness. You had a motor-car?—l have not got. it now. Mr O’Regan: You knew that according to the ship’s articles you could be discharged within twenty-four hours, and as regarded this agreement as providore within a week?—Yes. Andrew Thomas Dow, master of the Tees, stated that Stuart gave him satisfaction as cook and providore. Three firemen, five seamen and an ordinary seaman refused to sail at Greymouth unless the cook were discharged. I-lis Honor: How did they tell that? They all said so at once. His Honor: Like the chorus of a Greek tragedy. Witness gave evidence regarding abortive conferences. He recalled that Mr Young had said the ship would not sail while the cook was on board. Witness discharged Graham on October 6, and on October 7, after, posting the sailing notice, received notice from the crew that they would not sail while the cook was aboard. Finally the cook was discharged. Witness was willing then to sign on the old crew who had left the vessel, but not to sign on Graham. Under these circumstances he was then unable to secure a crew. Finally a crew, containing only one member of the old crew, was obtained. He did not at that time know that! Graham was an executive member of the crew, though Graham told him so afterwards. Cross-examined, witness said he knew that Young was interested in the matter because he had seen a telegram

from him telling the men to take the ship to sea, leaving the dispute to j be dealt with at Wellington. Mr O'Regan: The dispute began as a barney between Graham and the cook, and it was not until after the Court proceedings that the other members of the crew became disaffected? “Yes. The crew regarded the discharge of Graham at Greymouth as victimisation, and that was why they refused to take the ship to sea?—Yes. -Cross-examined with regard to Mr Young's statements at the second conference witness said that they were m the nature of a personal opinion in witness’s mind, and not in the nature of a demand. Questioned by his Honor, witness said he had regarded the Greymouth arrangements merely as temporary until reaching Wellington. Both Sjuart and Graham were capable men at their work. Witness said Young said his men would not take the ship to sea until the cook was dismissed. Mr Mazengarb: . Can you say whether at the time you concluded it was in Young’s power to give or withhold a crew?—At the time I thought the Seamen's Union would not let me have a crew. Both Young and the assistant-secretary' had expressed opinions which he took as not only opinions but as intimations. Mr Mazengarb: Were you speaking to them as private individuals? PI is Plonor: I do not think it amounts to that. William Morris, chief engineer of the Tees, said that at the second conference, Mr Bennett put the question to Mr s'oung: Was Graham to be. reinstated, and the cook discharged, and Young replied that was the position. The conference got no further. Mr Young said “What are we sitting here for?” Mr Bennett replied, “We have paid for the room, and we can sit here as long as you like.” Mr Young replied, “You can have your dinner here if you like,” and walked out. Witness thought that Young was not expressing his personal opinion, but was the mouthpiece of the union, and he thought the union had influenced the men not to go back. Gustav* Pedersen, seaman, said he signed on the Tees, but on calling at the union office to pay his dues he was led to believe the union intended to “blot him out.” Edward Kennedy, secretary of the Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union, declared that Young said at the conference that the men would not return unless the cook were discharged. Cross-examined, he said that was the attitude of the union, not of the men. Thomas Gardiner, agent of the Westport Shipping Company, who attended the conferences, said he did not believe Mr Young -was deliberately fomenting trouble. The heai'ing was adjourned.