Union Sued

Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1922, Page 1

Union Sued

[by TELEGKAPH —PEE PKEBS ASSOCIATION]

WELLINGTON, Nov. 6. A case of great interest to unionists is iK'ing heard at the Supreme Court ! before Air Justice Hosking and a jury. Five members of the Wellington Waterside Union are each claiming a mandamus ordering the union to recognise them as members and an injunction restraining the union from representing them as non-members and £5Ol damages. Air Watson, counsel for the plaintiffs, explained that the case arose out of the union’s demand for £1 annual levy, to which the plaintiffs and many others olqcctcd on principle and which had to he paid before they were permitted to work on the waterfront. There was no intention of attacking ■ unionism as such, but it was claimed j that tho imposition of the levy was a wrongful act of a small coterie | which had control of the local union and had exceeded their legal powers. Out of 8000 members in New Zealand only 1400 had paid the levy. The levy was stated to ho for a defence fund, but the minutes of the 1920 conference showed that it was intend- . od to he a strike fund estimated to ! produce £BOOO a year. There had Wen j no special meeting of the union to decide whether the levy should he imposed, hut at several meetings there was considerable uproar when the levy was under consideration. The iniposi- 1 ti-nn was confirmed at the 1921 confer- j erne, and counsel declared that the Wellington union at the beginning of 1922 set out to disregard all rules.

FURTHER DETAILS. WELLINGTON, Nov. 6

Tilley in the course of evidence, in the waterside case, said that since ho was harried by the Watersiders’ Union he had been hawking vegetables, but had been making very little money out of this work. Sir John Findlay asked if the witness had made money out of hookmaking. Air Berry strongly objected to this question os being one, which. might result in the incrimination of the

witness.. Ilis Honour upheld the objection

Charles I’at.rick Kavanagli said that his great objection was to the .manner in which the decision to impose the levy was arrived at. Those who differed from the officials were shut up.

Robert Gould said that he had refused to pay the levy unless a plebiscite of the New Zealand Watersiders was taken. When they asked specially what the levy was for, various excuses were given by the Union officials. He gathered the idea was to send a delegate to America and to Europe. The levy had oauesd milch discontent on the waterfront of Wellington and other ports.

Sir John Findlay: “Do you know (hat out of 1800 members at Wellington only you five have refused to pay the levy ? Witness: you would not like to say what kind of coercion was used to make them pay.” Some watersiders had gone to Australia rather than pay the levy. .The witness admitted that he was a socialist. He had been gaoled during the war as a conscientious objector. Alter his release, the Union elected him Chairman of fhc Disputes Committe.

Air Berry: “And now the Union seeks to blacken vou.”

Witness replied: “Not the Union hut the officials.”

.Michael Ready another plaintiff, said lie. had gone to work on the Wellington waterfront in 191-1. He had refused to pay the levy, because be considered ii a proper swindle from start to finish, lie objected to wearing a badge. ITc considered it an insult to decent men to ask them to wear it.”