CHARGED WITH EMPLOYING NON-UNION LABOUR

Chronicle (Levin), 7 August 1948, Page 2

CHARGED WITH EMPLOYING NON-UNION LABOUR

important Test Case ln Otaki ; Court An important test case relating 1 to the employment of non-union 1 labour by a- market gardener was J heard in the Magistrate's Court, : Otaki, before Mr. H. J. Thompson, : S.M., this week. ; Edward Thomas Bartosh, market gardener of Otaki, pieade'd not guilty to a charge laid oy the Inspector of Factories of employing non-union labour. Bartosh was represented by Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson (Wellington) , while Inspector R. J. Weir conducted the case for the prosecution. Defendant was a market gardener at Otaki and employed Joseph Robert Bartosh, an agricultural worker coming within the Agricultural Workers' Extension Order, 1947, said Mr. Weir. He was charged with failing in his duty, on representations being made to him, to see that his workers became financial members of a relative union. Bartosh had been warne'd twice, firstly on October 30 and again on December 11 of last year. The non-unionists had remalned such until February 26, 1948. The charge was brought in the nature of a test case and the 'decision would affect an industry employing a large amount of labour in New Zealand, continued Mr. Weir. In addition to the interviews, he had been written to by the deaprtment several times. Further, at the request of the department a meeting of growers in the Otaki district had been called at which there had been a full discussion on the law concerning the worker under the Agricultural Order. i Francis Norman Poole, Inspector of Factories, said that he had accompanied Mr. Weir when he interviewe'd Bartosh. The Agricultural Extension Order had been explained to him, together with its relation to union membership of market gardep employees. Bartosh had said that he had approache'd his workers in regard to the matter and in consequence one had already left his employ. Defendant had suggested that they. (.witness and Mr. Weir) should talk. with the workers themselves. This they had done, and working in Bartosh 's gardens they had found three workers, among them Joseph Robert Bartosh and Miss E. M. Flutey. The matter of union membership was discussed and J. R. Bartosh had asked for time to think the matter over. Miss Fiutey had stated that she thought a separate union should be formed and that market j gardeners should not have to belong1 to the General Labourers' Union. j This remark by witness was objected to by Miss Fmtey, who denied that she had said it. Cross-examined by Mr. Stevenson,1 Poole said that he had not known that defendant had had some 40,000 tomato plants coming into berry a.t the time. They had not been interested in what he had under cultivation. Mr. Stevenson: Then you were not interested in whether the workers left him or not? — The matter was not discussed. Questioned as to whether Mr. Weir had said, ''There is the order; you must obey it," and then left, witness said that he could say little else. Gordon Speedv Farquhar, Inspec-

tor of Factories, said that he had accompanied Mr. Weir when h? had made the visit to Bartosh in October, 1947. They had gone to see the wages hook, which showed that it was customary for defendant to employ labour in the garden. Questioned by Mr. Stevenson, Farquhar admitted that Bartosh had done everything in his power to persuade the workers to join the union. Summing up, Mr. Weir sajd that the evidence freely admitted that Bartosh had made' representations to the workers to join the union. tHowever, he'submitted that defendant had failed in his duty as an employer in using non-union labour. The Defence In defence, Bartosh said that near the middle of 1947 he had received notice from the Department of Labour advising him that all employees must belong to a union. He had spoken to his employees about it, and had told them that he was compelled to see that they joined a union. They had talked the matter over between themselves and had not decided either way. About a month later a delegate from the Labourers' Union had called and pointed out that under the order, he .(Bartosh) was' responsible for seeing that the workers were unionists. He had told the delegate that he had tried • to persuade them to join, but that they refused to become members of the General Labourers' Union thouglr they were quite prepared to join one connected with the work they were doing. He had asked him to see the workers liimself, but he had saidr* "I won't bother about that. It's your responsibility and I will leave it to you." Further, he had said that he could not be running around the country trying to persuade workers to join a union. He had pointed out that the workers were only two or three hundred yards away but he had left without seeing them. The following day he

had set the position before his employees, and one had said that he wouid leave as he could get a job where he could join a union appropriate to -his work. The mat- 1 ter had. then been. dropped and he j bad not raised it agam because he had aiready lo'st one • man through Lt. He considere'd that . when one man had left because of his insistf : ence, he had done his best to se.e that they joined a union. j Bartosh then went on to tell of i the two visits from the inspectors and thc subsequent~ meeting ' of market gardeners at which he had been chairman. As such, he had advised those present to get their empioyees to join the union. At the time no labour was available in thq district either union or non-union. He had been working short-handed for two years. Cross-examined by Mr. Weir, Bartosh admitted that he had never applied i to the Depaftment * of Labour or advertlsed to try to get workers. He had no way in which td board outside workers and there was no possibility of getting accommMation in Otaki. In the course of lengthy legal a rcmm An t-. TVTr Stevenson said that

a breach of clause 11 of the Agri-| culturai Workers' Order was alleged. This clause stated that the employees must pay any fee the M.nister deemed reasonable. No evidence had been brought forward that. the Minister deemed any contribution reasonable. The worker was clearly not liable for fees that the union cared to impose, but for sonre amount fixed by the Minister. However, no notifi'cation had been received of what was required. In the absence of proof to the con-^ trary, it would have to be taken' that the Minister had not fixed any fees. Mr. Stevenson, therefore, submitted that the prosecution woiud have to fail on these grounds. Further, argued Mr. Stevenson, no.offence had been committed by defendant because he had_ taken every step that he could to see. that the workers complied w.i,th clause 11. Counsel pointed out that there were penal provisions attiaching to the. clause. In this manner a man was penalised when, despite anything Ae might do, he might.not be able'to carry it 'out; because o£ what= otliers . might :do. He submittdd.that the 1 onus the clause. intended; to place on the employer was that; he was to- do everything in his power to get. hi& employees to join a union. Furth.er, it did- not state that if the e'mployee- "would ->not join, then. the employer should dismiss him. . ' Clause 12 clearly stated, he continued, that the action should be firs.t sent before ,a committee and, if no agreement .was;.reached, .to the 'Conciiiation Commissioner. . If ;this clause had any meaning, then these steps should have been taken before. the matter: came before the icourt. Clearly : -Bartosh had been acting lawfully when he- had employed the people, submitted ! counsel. I Mr. Stevenson had raised some ; very interesting points, commented Mr. Thompson in summing up the case. He would have to consi'der the matter and would, therefore, reserve judgment. Charges against two employees of Bartosh, Joseph Robert Bartosh and Eileen May Flutey, were adjourned sine die.