INCITING TO STRIKE ALLEGED

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 228, 23 June 1944, Page 6

INCITING TO STRIKE ALLEGED

Union President Charged AUCKLAND WATERFRONT

INCIDENT (By Telegraph.—Tress Association.) AUCKLAND, June 22. Charges of inciting waterside workers to strike on three different ships on May 20 were brought against Harold Barnes, waterside worker and president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, before Mr. J. 11. Luxford, S.M., this morning. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was brought under the Strike and Lockout Emergency Regulations, 1939. Mr. G. S. R. Meredith conducted the case for the Labour Department and Mr. R. E. Fawcett represented defendant. - Outlining the case Mr. Meredith said that some months before the trouble an arrangement was made between representatives of the Waterside Workers’ Union and the Waterfront Control Commission by which union men who desired a day off could be replaced by non-union men. When the trouble originated a representative of the union informed tbe Waterfront Controller that dissatisfaction had arisen and asked for a review of the arrangement. It was agreed that the matter would be investigated that following Monday. Evidence would be called that on May 20 a timekeeper received a message purporting to come from Barnes telling him to get rid of the nonunion men and replace them with union men. The timekeeper was instructed by the Waterfront Commission to retain the non-unionists. Barnes then insisted that the non-unionists be taken off. The commission was adamant and Barnes .left, stating that if that was the commission’s attitude he would stop work on the ships, the threat being carried out. The action taken hail seriously delayed cargo work. The Assistant Waterfront Controller, Captain Aubrey Wilfred Jenkins, in answer to Mr. Fawcett, said he understood the Labour Department had brought this prosecution n nd he knew nothing of whether it was a political prosecution. He had not been asked by the Labour Department about locking out the waterCounsel: How many Ministers have interested themselves in this case? Witness: I do not know. Did you know that there were some hundreds of union men waiting engagement on May 20 and they went away without work? —Yes.

Can you appreciate the waterside workers being stirred up by unionists being turned down and non-unionists being employed?—Yes. The whole question of relieving work was a burning one and I could see that the position would not be satisfactory when union labour was available, even if the scheme was at the union’s request. The magistrate: Had you known that trouble could have been avoided by putting non-union men off. at midday, would you have done so? Witness: I do not think so.

Mr. Fawcett: If you had put them off, would you not have had a claim from the union men engaged for the afternoon for payment from 8 a.m.? —-We may have had a claim, but they may not have got it. The Waterfront Controller at Auckland. William John Cuthbert, said he was advised by the vice-president of the union that it was agreed that replacements for relieving day work should be drawn from non-union labour. It was pointed out that the matter should be referred to the consultative committee, which comprised three employers’ representatives, three union representatives and a representative of the control commission. He saw the employers’ representatives, who agreed to the scheme, and it was put into effect immediately.

To Mr. Fawcett, witness said it was never conveyed to him that this arrangement was intended to operate only when no union labour was available. No resolution was necessary for that, as the engagement of non-union labour where no union labour was available was already provided for. Mr. Fawcett: Was it ever suggested to you on May 20 that the non-union labour engaged should be put off at 12 o’clock that day?

Witness: Definitely no. _ Had it been made. I would have given it serious consideration. On the close of the evidence for the prosecution, Mr. Luxford said it was quite clear that one charge must be dismissed. In the witness box defendant said he had been president of the Auckland branch of t"he Waterside Workers’ Union since 1941. When Mr. James Roberts was secretary of the national union and also waterfront control commissioner on a salary, witness thought, of £l3OO a year, as well as president of the Labour Party, witness said he was instrumental in having the matter discussed at a conference. As a result Mr. Roberts was told to make up his mind which position to retain, either secretary to the union or waterfront controller. He chose the latter. added witness. Objection to Evidence. At this stage Mr. Meredith objected and asked if Mr. Fawcett was making an allegation that the prosecution was a matter of spite. Mr.' Fawcett: lam setting out the reason for defendant being personally charged as a political question, and if I had the opportunity of cross-examining the officer of the Labour Department who brought the prosecution, I would do so. The magistrate said that, in view of the defence which was indicated earlier by cross-examination, when no objection was raised, he had to allow the evidence to proceed. . i . Continuing, defendant said that between 1935 and 1946, about £300,000 was paid bv the Waterside Workers’ Union to the Labour Party. In 1941 the union funds for all practical purposes were insolvent. Since then an affiliation fee of only about 1/- for each member was paid to the party, continued defendant, adding that he was largely responsible for the reduction. . „ , , “The men feel the Waterfront Control Commission is more aptly described as a ‘Wharfie Control Commission,’ as we have found that the employer is able to break orders without action being taken, but it needs no urging to take action against the union,” said defendant. Referring to the emergency orders requiring ships where practicable and at the discretion of the commission to be worked continuously with shifts day and night for seven days a week, defendant said that when the union made repeated protests about employers not carrying out the provisions of the order, the alibi was always advanced that there was congestion in the sheds. “We know from practical experience that the explanation is not correct,” he continued. “There have been any amount of cases of ships coming in to empty sheds where cargo was not worked.” Overseas vessels were in general all right in this respect, but the chief and practically only offender was the Union Steam Ship Company, Limited. "It doesn’t matter what you do, the commission will not face up to the employer,” said defendant. Defective gear on American vessels which had accounted for a number of accidents, including a fatality in Wellington, was also mentioned by defendant. In the event of an accident from this cause there was no cover for the waterside worker. On May 20, the date relating to the charges, defendant said it was reported to him that non-unionists were engaged as relieving men. He made inquiries, and, finding it correct, consulted other members of the union executive. It was decided to insist on the replacing of the non-union men with unionists by 10 a.m. Defendant felt it was an open and deliberate violation of the preferenee clause in the condition of employment of labour. He told the timekeeper to see the controller and tell him that if unionists awaiting engagement had not replaced the non-unionists by 10 a.m. and had to go home without work, the remainder of the unionists would go home with them. To the magistrate defendant said the men would have knocked off work whether lie was there or not. He did not think there would be two minds on the subject, as no unionist would work with non-unionists when union men were waiting engagement. lie would have been prepared to have had the non-unionists replaced by midday as a solution. He called at both the ships concerned and explained the position, at the second one saying that ho was going home. The 'inion executive decision on the arrangement for relieving work was to the effect that non-unionists would be employed where other work was offering for unionists. The hearing was adjourned.