CLAIM MADE FOR DAMAGES

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22507, 15 September 1938, Page 4

CLAIM MADE FOR DAMAGES

FREEZING WORKERS’ UNION SUED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL ALLEGED MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION A claim for £l3O for damage allegedly suffered as the result of dismissal from his employment by an alleged action of the Canterbury Freezing Works, and Allied Trades Industrial Union* of Workers (represented by Mr K. G. Archer) was brought before Mr H, Morgan, S.M., yesterday, by William Bernard Page (represented by Mr R. A. Young). .. . . In his statement of claim theplaintiff said he was employed by Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia), Ltd. in the fellmongery department of its works at Belfast on December 8, 1937. On December 10 the defendant union through its board of control, notified the management of the works that unless the emnloyment of the plaintiff was terminated by the manager, the union would instruct its members to strike. It was further stated that on December 21 the plaintiff was admitted as a member of the union which, through the members of its board ox control, notified the management of the works that if the plaintiff was reengaged the union would instruct its members to strike. Plaintiff’s Evidence Evidence given by the plaintiff showed that he was a carpenters labourer and also a member of the Restaurant Employees’Union. He went to the Belfast works seeking employment. He was engaged as a pelt thrower and employed for two and a half days. He was then told to go by Farrelly, the foreman of the fellmongery department. when it was discovered he was not a member of the union. He accompanied Farrelly to see Wonnacot* the union delegate at the works. Wonnacot said that because othex* members of the union were wanting positions, he could not give the position to plain“l then asked Wonnacot if I could get in if I joined the union,” said the witness. “He said he did not think there would be much chance of getting into the union. Later I offered Wonnacot £1 for the fee.-but he would not take It. They had a meeting of delegates and afterwards told me that the meeting went off in my favour, and I would probably get a job at a later date, but he would give no»definite answer. I told him that if I found anything underhand I would not hesitate to take action. Later Arnst. the branch secretary of the union at the works said if I had asked him first 1 would have got my ticket without any bother.” Payment of Union Fee On December 21 witness said he wenl to the works and saw Arnst. who accepted 10s on account of a membership fee and gave witness a coupon. The arrangement was that witness should pay the balance after he had done a weeks work. Subsequently he was told tc leave and report back at the works on January 4. He did so on that date and was told by Farrelly that the men had not changed their attitude. In cross-examination. Page said tha the manager (Smail) said he would prefer him to leave, otherwise the men would strike. Another man, named Thompson, who was not given a position because he was not a member of the union, was employed at a later date. Witness did not then make application for re-engagement. James Farrelly, foreman of the fellmongery department, gave evidence as to the employment of men in his department. Arnst told him that if Page was engaged the men would not work. Both Page and Thompson were doing unskilled work spreading . pelts. Counsel for the defendant union asked for a non-suit on grounds of law. He submitted that if there was any threat to strike it was not made for the union by any officer having authority to bind the union. There was no proof whatever that either Wonnacot or Arnst had any authority or that the union had any authority to confirm what they had done. It was denied that any threat of a strike had been accepted. The Magistrate reserved his decision on the non-suit.