MINERS OBJECT

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21421, 15 May 1941, Page 8

MINERS OBJECT

PATRIOTIC LEVY VOLUNTARY GIVING PREFERRED ACTION IN SUPREME COURT A decision by a meeting of miners at Pukemiro in June of last year to have a day’s wages deducted from their wages for the Sick and Wounded Patriotic Appeal had a sequel before Mr Justice Johnston in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday, when two claims for damages against the Northern Coal Miners’ Union were heard. The plaintiffs proceeded on the grounds that they refused to be dictated to by the union as far as their donations were concerned. The claims were brought against the union by Matthew Gardner, miner, of Pukemiro. and Gordon Partis, miner, of Huntly, both of whom were stated to have lost their employment as a result of their objection to the resolution. The former plaintiff claimed £250 general damages and £32 special damages, and the latter £250 general damages and £6O special damages. Plaintiffs were represented by Mr J. F. Strang, and the union by Mr F. W. Schramm (Auckland). Introducing the case for the plaintiffs, Mr Strang said the action was brought by two men who were formerly employees of Pukemiro Collieries, Limited. They had been employed there for a long time and were members of the defendant union. At the time the present action arose there was a considerable effort throughout New Zealand to raise funds for patriotic purposes. Toward this end a meeting of the men at Pukemiro was held when the matter of contributions to the patriotic fund was discussed. Plaintiffs said that no previous intimation of the meeting was given. Refusal to Agree After the matter was discussed it was finally decided that each member should donate one day’s pay, the money to be taken out of his wages. A good number of the union members accepted the resolution, but Gardner and Partis refused to agree to the deduction. They declined to agree to having the money stopped out of their pay. As a result of their action a special .meeting took place when Gardner and Partis’ refusal to accept the resolution was discussed. After the position was discussed it was decided that the union members refuse to work with them until they paid up. The decision of the union was communicated to the management, which realised that there would either be a strike or else further work must be refused Gardner and Partis, j Evidence of the pressure brought to j bear by the union would be given by ! the assistant manager at the mine, i The men could not get work there i or at any other mine and had to take j employment at a smaller remuneri ation. Through the action of the , union they were deprived of the opportunity of earning a miner’s wages. They were out of work for about six weeks. No Right to Interfere “Their objection was that they contended that the union had no right to interfere with their wages,” said [Mr Strang. “They said that they should receive their pay dockets intact. The question of the laudabil- | ity of the cause for which the money was being collected is beside the ! point. The two men were prepared to contribute to patriotic funds as far as they were able, and proof of this can be found in the fact that on the day before the meeting one of them had made donations totalling 18s. The whole point at issue was the legality of the union to interfere with the wages of any of the men.” The first witness, Matthetv Gardner, detailed the events leading up to his dismissal and described the meeting as a “ rabble ” and a “ dogfight.” When he and Partis objected to the deduction from their dockets the union members decided that they would not work with the two men, and the management was notified ac-’ cording]}’. The management had no option but to dismiss witness and Partis. “ A Political Move ” “ I objected to the deduction on the ground that if it were agreed to there was no knowing where such a course would stop,” said witness. “ How did we know where the union would draw the line? In any case, the matter of taking the money had nothing to do with the union as such. I will not have anyone interfering with my pay docket before my family gets it. I went to other mines in the district, but could get no work as the union would object.” To Mr Schramm witness described the deduction as a “ political move to sway the public.” It was explained at the meeting, he said, that the miners did not stand very well in the eyes of the public, and the donation to the patriotic fund would give them a chance to ' shine themselves up a bit.” Cross-examined, witness admitted that he appealed to the manager after ! the action was taken against him. Mr Schramm: Why did you not ap- ! proach the union secretary?—What, and get cursed and bullied down! That is what always happens. Mr Schramm: But you were secretary of the union.yourself a few years ago.—Yes, but I did not act the way they do today. Service in the Navy To Mr Strang, witness said that he saw service in the last war, havhaving been in the Navy. He was 18 years at the mine. Corrobative evidence was given by i Gordon Partis, who said he would not pay up because he would not be die- : fated to by Garrick (the union pre- j sident) or anyone else. "We are : asked to fight against dictatorships, ' and here we find Garrick introducing 1 a dictatorship into New Zealand.” I “ I do object to being dictated to,” I said witness to Mr Schramm. ' I i had previously given money freely ! and I did not want any publicity j over it.” Mr Schramm: I put it to you that i you and Gardner wanted to dictate to 1 all the others.—No, I did not want to I touch anyone else's wages and I ob- 1 jected to the union interfering with mine. Eight men voted against the resolution and one of them was a i Communist.” ” Questions Waved Aside ” When witness saw the manager the latter said he could not afford to

take the two men back as it might mean the rest of the miners ceasing work at a time when the country needed coal. However, he would take them back if they could settle the dispute. George Ridley, another miner, said that a number c f members objected to the motion at x he meeting; but their questions were just waved aside by the president of the union. Witness would be prepared to work with Gardner and Partis, whether they agreed to the motion or not. To Mr Schramm witness said the motion was carried by the men 'only to save trouble at the mine. A trucker, Cecil Leech, said that most of the men would rather have given the money voluntarily; but they would not speak for fear of losing their jobs. Witness paid only because he did not want to cause any trouble. The hearing was adjourned until today. TODAY’S EVIDENCE^ The final witness for plaintiffs, John Brownlie, deputy-manager of Pukemiro Collieries, said today that there were about 200 members of the union at Pukemiro. When witness was advised that each of the men was to give a day’s wages to the fund the colliery clerk had to go through the paysheets, as a result of which £245 was telephoned to Auckland. The money was to be deducted from the men’s pay. Contributions on a voluntary basis were made by the colliery officials. The amount actually remitted was short *of the amount telephoned, being £241 17s 6d. Advice that the men would not work with Gardner and Partis was received by witness, who told the two plaintiffs of the position. Neither of the men went into the mine after June 26. Both were good workers. They were not actually dismissed, but the position was that if the two men went in the other 198 would not. Tin* closed the case for plaintiffs.