THE FLAXMILLERS AWARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 914, 5 November 1910, Page 3

THE FLAXMILLERS AWARD.

ALLEGED BREACH OF PREFERENCE CLAUSE. CASE DISMISSED. At Wednesday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers claimed from the Awahou Flaxmilling Company (Wm. Ross), for an alleged breach of the preference clause of the Flaxmillers Award. The alleged breach was that the defendant failed to dismiss a worker named W. Whitten, who was not a member ot the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Union, from his service when requested to do so by the said Union, there being then a member ol the said Union equally qualified to perform the particular work to be done and ready and willing to undertake the same.

Mr R. H, Dalhousie conducted the case on behalf of the Union, and - Mr J. P. Junes appeared for the defendant.

Mr Dalhousie briefly outlined the grounds on which the case had been taken, and also quoted several previous decisions which had been given in various parts of the Dominion. He called Percy Tucker Robinson, secretary of the Union, who stated that he visited the Awahou mill on September 27th. in connection with this matter aud saw the manager, Mr Berry. He asked him it he knew what he was doing in failing to

dismiss the man as requested, to which Mr Berry replied that it was hardly the thing to dismiss a

man in that way. Witness told him that he was liable to a fine for

breach ol Award if he did not do

so, and Mr Berry then said that Mr Ross’ ultimatum was that he would dismiss no man for the Union. Witness said that he had been employed in the flax industry for about 20 years. The man (Hawkins) he sent down to the

mill to take Whitten’s place, was

a thoroughly competent man. Witness had worked with him years ago and he had also seen him feeding ahont January of this year. He considc.ed Hawkins to be a better feeder than Whitten, as he was an even feeder and Whitten was not. Witness put in a statement showing the different periods during which Hawkins had been engaged. Witness said that during Mr Fulton’s absence in St. Helena, Hawkins was the Chief Fibre Expert for the Dominion. ■ To Mr limes : The Labour De-

partment had first refused to take

the case up, but did not give any grounds for their refusal. Would not say that Hawkins was addicted to drink. He understood Whitten was a teetotaller. With equal men he would take a teetotaller every time. He understood Hawkins resigned his position as Government grader. Whitten had repeatedly promised to join the Union but had not done so. To Mr Dalhousie ; The Labour

Deportment at first refused to take the case up, but afterwards notified they were prepared to go on with it, but not in time for the present court day. Richard Heron Dalhousie, in evidence, stated that from the middle of January to the end of February he was working at Wilson and Hawkins’ mill at Whirokiuo, and during majority of that time Hawkins was acting as feeder and stripperkeeper. Witness considered that he was one of the best feeders he had known. To Mr Innes : Witness said he never saw Hawkins drinking during the whole time he was feeding. Had never seen him under the influence of liquor. Mr Innes in outlining his case said that one of the defences was that Hawkins was not equally competent with Whitten. Also that Whitten had been engaged prior to the coming into operation of the Award. He called the following evidence: — William Ross, owner of the mill,

who said that he took no part in

the engagement or dismissal of hands. He knew Whitten, who was not a member of the Union.

Wituess had spoken to him about joining the Union and understood Y his refusal to do so was on account of his religion. Had told him that the easiest way out of the difficulty would be for him to join. Whitten had been engaged prior to last April and although the mill was closed for a time during the winter witness did not look upon it that the engagement terminated when the mill closed as there was an understanding that the men were to resume their work when the mill re-commenced. Witness said he knew Hawkins and in his opinion he was not as good a feeder as Whitten. Witness also gave other reasons why he would refuse to employ him. To Mr Dalhousie ; On one occasion he understood Whitten to say that he would join the Union eyd. witness sent word to the Seof the Union to that effect. Henry Berry, manager of the mill, said that Whitten was a good, steady, reliable worker The mill had a patent catcher installed aud the more experienced the man had with it the better were the results. He knew Hawkins and did not think he had ever worked with the patent catcher. He certainly did not think he was as good a feeder as Whitten as he had done practically no feeding for six or seven years. He gave othei reasons why he would prefer to employ Whitten of the two. When the mill closed down during the winter, arrangements were made With all the men to start again when the mill re-opened. They all returned except one scutcher. To Mr Dalhousie ; Witness said be had heard Mr Robinson’s evi-

dence as to the conversation between them when he visited the mill and either Mr Robinson had misunderstood him or he was confounding it with something else. What really took place was that Robinson asked him to dismiss Whitten to which witness replied “ No.” Ido not think it would be the “clean spud” to do so. “ If you were in the same position you wouldn’t like it,” Robinson then asked him if he knew the position, to which he replied that he did and would not put off a man unless he could get a better one,

The Magistrate said he thought the words “equally qualified” covered more than ability to do the work. The employer was entitled to take into consideration a man’s character. Hawkins was not present to hear what had been said, which was a pity. Taking the evidence before him he considered it was sufficient to justify Mr Ross in refusing to put Whitten off in order to put Hawkins on. He did not consider the patent catcher could be considered as the working of same would have to be learned by all feeders. On the ground of competency the case must fail. He considered also that in this particular instance Whitten was never out of Mr Ross’ employment. The mill was closed for some weeks hut the connection of master and servant continued all along. On that ground he was compelled to hold that the case must fail. Judgment would therefore be for defendant and with costs £i is. At the conclusion of {the case, His Worship again expressed his opinion in reference to all engaged in the industry joining the Union, He said that it was only fair, considering they were reaping all the benefits of the Union, that they should join the Union and give it their support. By doing so they would also save a lot of trouble to employers.