A CHARGE FAILS

Hokitika Guardian, 19 June 1926, Page 4

A CHARGE FAILS

WKLU.YGTO.Y. .him. 17. There ucr;. some lively passages between counsel and a union seereturv during the hearing of a case in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. The mailer was one in which the Storemen’s ami .‘’ackers’ I'nion claimed a penally from Briscoe and ("a. for alleged In ca: lies of award.

Mr Mounljoy. of the l.ahonr Department. who conducted the oroserutinn.

said that the defendants had employed two men in their store and had failed to pay them the award rate oi wastes.

Kvidence was given by .John Tucker, secretary of the Storemen’s and Slickers’ t'nion. Ho said he received an application from Briscoe and Co. asking for an under-rate permit for a man camel Gibbs. Mr Simpson had iti-

formed witness that Gihbs was meiitnllv weak. Witness considered that Gibbs was doing storeman's work and should have keen receiving £1 instead cf £'J ISs till a- week.

.Mr Watson: Are you responsihlue for this prosecution?—To a certain extent.

A'on have informed Briscoe and Co. tha t you would prosecute them whenever you could?—Never. You have been ordered off their i 10mises?— ; Yes. You have repeatedly tried to make trouble with their employees ?—Never. Did Briscoe and C;. inform you tint Gibbs was not capable of keeping up to the mark and they wanted to keep him on because Ids father had been forty years in the firm?—They told me he was weak-minded. He is not a member of your union?— No. heel use he was compelled to be a member of the guild.

You have tried to persuade Gibbs to join the union?— X never approached him on the 'subject.

You knew that your action will force the man out on to the street?—That is not so.

Is it .not a fact that you and your union have a feud against Briscoe and Co. because they prefer non-union

men ?—T have told tliem that they are the only firm that fight against the union.

Evidence was given by David Ambrose Gibbs, who said lie had been employed for three years as general hand and also did packing. Tie made application for an under-rate permit two or three months ago. To Mr 'Watson, witness said Unit Briscoe and Co. had always treated him fairly, avid he did not want to laconic a, member of Tucker’s union. Since May 17. when the. summons had been issued, he had not been working, but. bad been paid full time by Briscoe and Co.

Evidence as to the class of work was given bv John Miller, in respect of whom the second allegation was made. R. I'. Bailey gave evidence of an application for an under-rate permithaving been made oil behalf of Gibbs. Judgment was given in favour of defendants. ■ .