Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE NEW UNION AT AUCKLAND.

(r*V» ASSOCIATION' TJXEGRAU.) \UCKLAND, January ■ The question as to whether the new Union of Waterside Workers at Auckland has power to go to an employer end insist on the discharge of a nonwfoatot emiJwed on the when- wns Plaintiff in the action in question was Frederick Moyman, one of the waterficte workers who went on strike, who Reeded against the Auckland. Waterjfde Workers' Industrial Lnicin of Workers, alleging that the officials of the nem union intentionally and without lawful justification, induced the «mplorcrs or plaintiff to terminate a contract of service entered into on January 14th, 1914. between plaintiff and his employer. He claimed £r2o damages from the union. Mr Hall Skt-lton, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said the proceedings were somewhat of a tost. The ex-strikers desired to know just exactly what was the power ol tho new union in regard to the matter of employment. Frederick Mayrnan, the plaintiff, stated that he' was engaged by an agent of the Now Zealand Shipping Company to unload tho coal-laden steamer Kilbrvde. He and his mates wero asked if they had their union tickets, and witness replied that he had applied for admission to the union. The agent then remarked that he could not he botnored waiting any longer, and told them they had better start work. They worked until lunch time, but after lunch, they found them were two extra men in the hold. The agent of the ■ypvr Zealand Shipping Company then said to witness and his mate that in consequence of the representations of the' union, he would have to dispense with their services, but added that if they joined tho new rninn, they could go back to work afterwards. The secretary of the new union told them that he had brought about their distnissal on account of the fact that they were non-unionisis. Cross-examined, witness explained that he had applied for admission to the new union twice, but had been refused on each occasion. The case at this stage was adjourned.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19140128.2.84.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume L, Issue 14886, 28 January 1914, Page 11

Word count
Tapeke kupu
341

THE NEW UNION AT AUCKLAND. Press, Volume L, Issue 14886, 28 January 1914, Page 11

THE NEW UNION AT AUCKLAND. Press, Volume L, Issue 14886, 28 January 1914, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert