Watersider Alleges That He Has Been Victimised.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18936, 5 December 1929, Page 10

Watersider Alleges That He Has Been Victimised.

SUES COMMITTEE OF UNION FOR DAMAGES AND CLAIMS MEMBERSHIP. 44 T'VEFENDANTS have, without just cause, excluded J— / plaintiff from obtaining the privileged status conferred by membership of the said union, and which status plaintiff is entitled by law to acquire, and plaintiff lias been victimised by defendants, deprived of work, and caused much damage by defendants’ determination to prevent him from acquiring the said status.” On these allegations Edward Gillard, a waterside worker at Lyttelton, in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Adams, sued the Committee of Management of the Lyttelton Waterside Workers’ Union for £SO damages for loss of work during the past year. He asked for an order that the committee should admit him as a member of the union and accept fees tendered by him.

The committee consists of Ernest M’Farlane, William Bate, Bertram Faber, Patrick Manning, Joseph Jones, Owen Riley, Thomas Anchor, James Paulsen, Albert Fenton, Henry Boyns, Charles Small and John Flood, and these appeared as defendants in the case.

the same industry in his district, could join that union. The committee had disregarded the award, which stated that applicants would be admitted in priority of application. As to the committee’s contention that Gillard’s remedy was to go to the Arbitration Court, he had no status before that tribunal. He had no means to put that Court in motion. Gillard said that he wrote his application in Mr Flood’s office, when Mr Flood was present. He offered £2 in fees, but Mr Flood would not take it, saying that the application must come before the committee. Mr Flood said that the committee was not making any more members, and that he had nothing to do with the election of members, being only a paid servant. Walking across the wharves one day with Mr J. Poulsen, one of the defendants, witness spoke of union affairs. Mr Poulsen said that witness was very foolish to go to law with the union. “‘You had a chance to get in before,” Mr Poulsen said, “but the union knows you and your crowd, and you’ll not get into the union again.” Witness replied: “That’s all right, Jim. We may get in sooner than you expect.” Men from Wellington, Dunedin, Greymouth and other places had been elected members while witness was waiting. Roll-stuffing Alleged. Mr Upham said that he wished the witness to show that, when he was seeking membership, and when the membership was 681, a hotel-porter was admitted, but, up to the present time, had not been near the wharves. Flis Honor: That does not amount to roll-stuffing. Mr Gresson: Once a man is elected, there is no means to remove him, as long as he pays his subscription. Mr Upham: We applied for membership in September, 1928, when there were not 700 members. His Honor: The membership is a floating one, men coming and going. It is more uncertain than the membership of any other union. You can’t attach much importance to a man not turning up to work. Unless you show some sort of conspiracy, it hardly , can be rollstuffing. The fact that a man is put on the roll, but does not turn up for work, does not show that there is anything improper. He might turn up next day. Mr Upham: I see the difficulty; I won’t labour the point. Witness said that this year up to October 16, he had earned £125 7s Bd, working for thirty-three weeks and averaging £3 18s a week while earning. There was nothing as a watersider he could %iot do. He had been put off for being a non-unionist. Mr Upham: Has it affected your earning power being a non-unionist?— T remendously. Flow has it done so?—-If I start at 8 a.m., I am sacked that night for being a non-unionist, and won’t start next day. Mr Gresson: If unionists were available?—Yes. The union secretary said to me, “If I start you, there will be trouble,” and I’ll swear there were no union men there then. That closed plaintiff’s case. CASE FOR THE UNION. Mr Gresson said that there were in the case three issues of law:—(1) Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to order a union with an open membership roll to admit a workman? (2) Could a union validly limit its membership by its rules? (3) Had the Arbitration Court jurisdiction to grant a preference clause in the form of clause 54 of the award?

Gillard, in his statement of claim, set out that on September 15, 1928, and from time to time later, he applied for membership, but Mr Flood, the secretary, told him that he had not succeeded in being elected a member. Gillard contended that he had been excluded without lawful reason. Fie stated that, although able to obtain employment when unionist labour was not available, he had been frequently debarred from obtaining work by reason of the refusal to admit him as a member. Gillard’s statement of claim also set out that the committee justified its refusal to admit him by alleging that the membership of the union was limited to 700 members. He denied that a valid limitation of membership had been agreed to between the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation and the New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association. If the Court found that membership of the union was validly -limited, Gillard contended that new members had not be admitted in order of priority of date of application, and that many members had been admitted who applied later than he did. Applicants were elected on a ballot of the committee without regard to the dates of application. The roll of membership was stuffed with members who were employed in work other than that of waterside workers, and who did not follow the calling of waterside workers, and were not eligible for membership. Gillard alleged that the committee had taken his name and the names of about twenty other applicants for membership in the same circumstances as Gillard, who had complained of the committee’s disregard of the rules and had informed them that they would be kept out of the union under any circumstances. On September 15, 1928, and later, the membership was below 700. The Defence. The defence was that Gillard did not make proper application for membership by applying to the secretary and at the same time tendering to him the entrance fee and half-yearly subscription until October 2, 1929, since which date no applicants had been admitted to membership, as no vacancies had occurred. A valid agreement limiting the membership of the union to 700 under Clause 54 (d) of the award had been made between the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation and the New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association. The committee contended that, if Gillard had been wrongfully refused admission, his proper remedy lay in applying to the Arbitration Court to delete or suspend the provisions in the award requiring employers to employ members of the union in preference to non-members. Mr Upham appeared for Gillard, and Mr M. J. Gresson, with him Mr Archer, for the committee. Case for Plaintiff. Mr Upham said that Gillard was of good character, of sober habits, and of strong physique, was skilful in his work, and was in every way qualified to carry out the duties of the calling. The Arbitration Court, by inserting in the award the limitation clause 54 (d), had exceeded its jurisdiction, acting contrary to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Sections 5 and 11 of the Act showed that any eligible worker could, with others, form a new union, or, if there was a union in existence in

(Proceeding.)