S.S. TEES DISPUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 23 June 1926, Page 1

S.S. TEES DISPUTE

COOK’S SUIT FOiR £607. [by TELEGRAPH PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] \\ ELLINGTON. June 22. A ship’s cook, John James Stuart, who wtis discharged from the steamer Tees, over a dispute will a fireman ■about the quality of some milk at Grcymouth, claimed £SOO damages and other recompense, making a total of £OO7 in the Supreme Court, lrotn tlie Wellington Seamen’s Union and the secretary, Mr Young. The allegation was that defendant illegally conspired and combined with others to induce or compel tiie Shipping- Company to determine, its contract with plan tiff, and further that they instigated the crew to take part in an unlawful strike. I lie defence denied conspiracy, and said they were not responsible lor plaintifl s discharge. The dispute was between members of the crew. .Mr Voting was later asked to use his inHueiieo to reopen the dispute with it rieu to the reinstatement of plaintiff but there was no ofiieial connection

of the Union or the seeretsiry. .Mr .Mazrcngarb, tor the plaintiff, said lie was Lhe cnuk-providorc of '.he Tees. A fireman named (.’raliam at Grey mouth raised a dispute that tie milk had water in it. A disturbance followed in which Graham struck plaintiff. Proceedings for assault against Graham were dismissed, and the firemen refused to take the snip to sett, il the rook remained on hoard. A temporary truce was arranged to enable the vessel to proceed to Wellington, the cook proceeding overkind. Conferences were held. The caplain ot the Tees gave notice to Graham considering him the cause of Ibe trouble, land refused tins pressure In sign him on again. The Captain v, us informed by the Assistant Secretary if the Union that no crew could he supplied and the vessel was held up for 14 days. In. the Stuart case, the plaintiff -live evidence as to his own part in he affair.

Cross-examined by Mr I’. J. Tegan as to whether lie had not ituwn that Mr Young had not np•ovorl of the action taken at GreyouHi, plaintiff said tint he did rut low whether he did or not.

“You’re a limn of means aren’t >u.” ashed Mr O’ Regan. “The first, I’ve heard of it,” roicd the witness.

“You had a motor cal'?” “J have not got it now.” Air O’Regan: “You knew tbit acrding to the ship’s articles, you uld ho discharged withii 24 hours, id as regarded this agreement as ovidore, within a week?” “Yes.”

Andrew Thomas Dowell, Master of the Tees, stated that Stuart give him satisfaction as cook and providore. He stated that three firemen, five seamen. and an ordinary seanran refused to sail at Groyntoulh, unless the nook was discharged. Tfis Honour: “How did they tell that?” “They all said so at once.” His Honour: “Dike the chorus of a Greek tragedy!" Witness gave evidence! regarding iburtivo conferences called, stilting that .Mr Young had said tbo ship would not sail while tho cook was on board. Witness said lie discharged Graham on the Jilt of October, and on the 7th of October, after his p.o,sting a

sailing, notice was received from the crew that (hey would not sail while the cook was aboard. Finally the cook was discharged. He (witness) was willing to sign on llie old crew, who laid lolt the vessel, hut not to sign on Graham. I'nder tin; eircum.-dinurcs he was l hen tumble In secure a crew. Finally, a crew containing only one member of the old crew, was obtained. Ho did not at. that lime, know that (1 rulMm was an Executive member of the crew, though Graham fold him so afterwards. Under cross-examination, witness said that lie knew Mr Young was interested in the mallei', because ho hail seen a telegram from him telling the men jo take the ship m sea, thus leaving the dispute to lie dealt with at Wellington. Mr O’liegan: “The dispute Ivcgan as a barney between Graham and the cook, and it was mil until after the Court proceedings that Hie. other members of tho prow became disaffected ?”

“Yes.” Mr O'Rogaii: “The crew regarded 11m discharge: of Graham al Grevmouth as victimisation, anil that was why they refused to Like tin* ship to sea,” “Yes.” Cross-examined with regard to Mr Young’s statements, at the second conference, witness said that they were in the nature of his personal opinion, in witnesses’s mind, and were not in the nature of n demand.

Questioned by His Honour, witness said that lie had regarded the Greymouth arrangements merely as temporary. until reaching Wellington. Both Stuart and Graham were capable men at their work. Regarding Mr Young’s remark on resuming, witness said Mr Young had said that, his men would not take the ship to sea until the cook was dismissed. Mr Mazengnrb: “Can you sav, whether, at the time, you concluded it was in Mr Young’s power to give or withhold a crew?”

“At the time E though that the Seamen’s Union would not let- me have a crew.” Both Young and the Assistant Secretary had expressed opinions which he took' as not only opinion: hut. ns intimations. Mr Massengarb: “Were you speaking to them sis private individuals?” His Honour: “T do not think it amounts to that.” William Morris, Chief Engineer on the Tees, said that at the second conference Bennett put the question to Young:—Was Graham to be reinstated and the cook discharged, and Young replied that that was the position. Tho conference got no further. Young said :—‘What are we sitting here for?” Bennett replied: “We have paid for the room, and we can sit here as long as you like.” Young replied: “You can have your dinner here if you like.” and walked out. Witness thought that Young was not expressing lus personal opinion, but ■was the mouthpiece of the I nion. and h« thought the Union had influenced men not to conic back. Gustave Pederson, a seaman, said that he signed on the Tees hut on calling at tho Union office to pay his dues he mas led to believe, that the Union intended to blot him out. Edward Kennedy. Secretary of the Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union, declared that Young said atT the. conference that the men would not return unless the cook was discharged. Cross-examined, Kennedy said that

tliiat was the attitude of the Union not of tho men.

Thomas Gardiner. Agent of the Westport Shipping Coy,, who attended the conference, said that lie did not believe that Young was deliberately fermenting trouble. The hearing was adjourned: