CASE FOR DEFENCE

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

CASE FOR DEFENCE

MINERS AND LEYY APPLICATION FOR NONSUIT DECISION AT MEETING When the case for plaintiffs closed lin the Supreme Court today in the j action in which Matthew Gardner j and Gordon Partis sought £282 and : £3lO damages respectively from the : Northern Coal Miners’ Union, Mr F. | W. Schramm (Auckland), for the dej fence, made an application for a non- ! suit. The case was heard before Mr j Justice Johnston, and plaintiffs were i represented by Mr J. F. Strang, j The application for a nonsuit was ! made by Mr Schramm on the ; grounds that plaintiffs’ case did not ; disclose any cause of action. A resoj lution was forwarded to the managej ment, but there was no threat or : intimidation. The union had a perfect right to forward the resolution to the management. Plaintiffs were not dismissed and the position in which they found themselves was due entirely to their own actions. Decision on the application was deferred, and Mr Schramm proceeded with the case for the defendant union. Orderly Meeting: The secretary of the Pukemiro branch of the union, George Lawson, said that neither Gardner nor Partis | made any objection at the meeting j when the levy was suggested. The j meeting lasted about an hour and no • one was refused a hearing. To witness’ knowledge no one raised a voice in objection. The meeting was an orderly one, and nothing was said to the effect that the donation would enable the miners to get “on side” with the public. Witness said that he and the president had guaranteed to the management that the money would be forthcoming from the men. In the ordinary course of events a voluntary collection would have been made on a pay day, but it was desired to determine the amount quickly as the 1 fund was due to close. Majority Rule I “If these two men are prepared to J abide by majority rule they can I come back tomorrow,” said witness to Mr Strang. “If we could not have j majority rule it would be useless for | us to carry on as a union. If the posi- | tion of deducting money from the ! wages arose again it would be for | the men to decide.” Although at the ! meeting a show of hands against the : motion was called for. nobody voted j against it, said witness. ; To Mr Strang, witness admitted that it was a principle of unionism that a man should receive his wages undiminished. The dispute with Gardner and Partis was regarded purely as a local matter for Pukemiro, and as far as witness knew they were not declared “black” at the other mines. Evidence of the meeting was given by John David Garrick, who presided over them. (Proceeding)