“TRUCULENT LETTER”

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 13675, 8 May 1912, Page 8

“TRUCULENT LETTER”

A UNION’S CONSPIRACY. Foreman's Dismissal Demanded. An interesting case was recently heard at Greymouth by Air Justice Dcnniston. The following report is gleaned from his Honor’s judgment, which was read m Cirevmontli on Friday:— • The parties were Win. Edward Blanche, plaintiff., and James MeGinley and otlicfs. and the Greymouth Wharf Labourers’ I"nion. defendants. •■The plaintiff," said his Honor, “was a v liari foreman employed as such by the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand. Limited. The complaint is that the defendants illegally conspired and combined to compel his employer, the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand, to dispense with hi- services, although the company was perfectly satisfied with him, and that be was in consequence dismissed. The defence is a general dental, and an affirmative allegation that if the acts alleged by the plaintiff to have been done by the defendants wore done, they were justified, inasmuch as the plaintiff frequently bore a domineering attitude and insulting manner towards the members of the Union who were working under the plaintiffs supervision, so that many such workers found it impossible to work under the plaintiff ’- supervision, and_ accordingly made complaint to this eiicct to the executive of the Union.

"There is very little dispute as to the fact.-. The plaintiff had been working at the Greymouth wharf for about eleven year-, at first a- an ordinary labourer. As -ucli ho was a member of the Union, and at one lime its president. He was engaged as wharf foreman by the Union Company on 2ttli June, 1907. and continued in such employment till 141 hj November last. A good deal of evidence was given by the defendants in support of the allegation that his conduct as foreman was harsh and domineering. I hesitated to admit such evidence, in the absence of any allegation by tli eplaintiff of malicious action on the part of the defendants. Both parties wore, however, anxious that the evidence should be rerc.rded. The result was to satisfy me that the plaintiff was a rough and foul-mouth-ed man, whose language and demeanour had on several occasions irritated the men under his control, the majority of whom, judging by those who gave evidence, were decent, respectable workmen. It was also apparent that his methosd of hustling, or, as it i- termed, ‘speeding-up,’ work in the interests of his employer, were obnoxious to the men. That he was to some extent unpopular was clear. I think, however, tiiat the extent of that unpopular!! v ha- been much exaggerated. This is -hown by (lie laet that very few complaints itoic formally noted bv the officer- of the Union, and by them communicated to the manager of the company. I am also of opinion that opposition to the plaintiff, and the action of the Union and it- members in regard to him, were largely fomented by olc of the defendants, George Stanton, who appears to have a grudge against the plaintiff, arising out of a personal quarrel of long -landing. I cannot, however, find—if it were necessary for the case of the plaintiff that I should find—that the eomulaiiits of the men as to bis general conduct were -o unjustified as to show malice on their part or on the part of the bn ion. WHAT HAPPENED. "What that action was is not disputed. At one of the usual weekly meetings of the Union, held on 12th November, 1911, the question of the conduct of the plaintiff was brought up. No notice was given ol the intention to raise the question at such meeting. About sixty or seventy members were present. A resolution was put and carried with practical unanimity in these terms: ‘That, owing to the domineering attitude and insulting manner adopted by Air Blanche towards the members of this Union while at work we here, by give the company 48 hours to have him removed.’ On the 13th a letter was written to the branch manager, who asked for something specific regarding the complaint, and suggested that a deputation wait on him and discuss the position. A deputation of six was set up, and it waited on the manager. Air D. Carter. The manager attempted, he says, by every possible mums to get particulars of any specific instances. Stanton was the only member who gave any instances, and lie srenis to have shown great eagerness in the matter. In the circumstances the manager gave the only possible reply—that in his opinion they had no grounds of complaint, hut added that if they 1 hough* they hud lie was quite prepared to transfer Blanche to another shift (he had till then always had the night shift) and abo to give instructions which he thought weuld nrcvoL’t friction. Tiiis offer was refused, flic deputation saving that tiiis was. in fact, promotion. He was told that trouble would arise if he was not removed. He asked if they unite reali-ed what they were doing in asking him to dismis- the man, and whether he was to take this as from tlie Union or from them as individuals. He was told that it was from the Union. He told them that it was practically taking the man’s livelihood away, and asked if, in the event of his leaving or of his being dismissed, they would consent to his working as an ordinafA labourer. Some said they would and others said they would not. Ho suggested they should think it over and let him know the result. On the same evening ho received a letter informing him that at a meeting of the Union, held that morning, his proposal

as lo the plaintiff was laid before the members nd it was unanimously decided lo adhere to the resolution previously carried. These resolutions show that it was never intended to discuss the matter. On receipt of this letter the manager notified the plaintiff that he was not to go on shift that night, and the following day dismissed him, paying him a month s salary. The manager says he so acted from former experience and for fear of trouble.

"There can bo no question as to the fart that the action of the Union showed a total absence of any notion of fair play or sense of justice. The man was accused, tried, condemned, * and sentenced at a meeting called without notice of any such business. The question for the Court, however, is not the manner of the Union’s procedure, but this: Do the facts disclosa an actionable wrong against the plaintiff? “No body of workmen,” his Honor continued, “would oven in present conditions address so curtly truculent a missive to an employer unless the senders knew, and knew that the employer would know, that there were means in the senders' power to enforce it. There is no request—no suggestion. It is a bare mandate. That it wass considered us so intended is obvious from the action of the manager on its receipt and after. At the close of tiie 48 hours allowed by the ultimatum—which had been launched without anv preli tinary declaration or notice—the" manage,.’ dismissed the plaintiff. On the evidenca no one could doubt that what was threatened was immediate action. That action could only be stoppage of work in the event of the plaintiff’s appearance at the slih't after the expiry of the 48 hours. One cannot in such a matter shut one’s eyes or cars as to what is going on around ns in connection with these matters. I came to my decision, however, independent of this. One of the witnesses said very pertinently that the Union would hesitate to order a strike—whihe woa.d make them liable to a fine of £2OO. Thai; is very probable. But they must be aware that ‘down tools’ is an order frequently made without the direct sanction —and often with the actual disapproval of the Union. One witness said the word ‘strike’ was never, mentioned. In m.Oi case it would be carefully avoided, in passing the resolution in the form tliev did. those doing so must in my opinion have been aware of its object and effect. “I am satisfied that the threat convoyed to, and intended to be understood bv. the company’s manager was a threat of trouble by the refusal of the men to work under Blanche on the termination of the 48 hours’ notice. This was clearlv an illegal threat, and therefore (he company, having been induced or coerced by it (o dismiss the plaintiff, and thereby to cause him to lose what was not only’ the prospect but (he certainty of continuous employment, in my opinion gives him a cruse of action and entitles him to such damages as lie may thereby have incurved. “I assess these damages at £73, for which amount there will lie judgment for the plaintiff, with costs on lowt.-t scale,"