SEAMEN’S UNIONS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 15, 8 April 1927, Page 5

SEAMEN’S UNIONS

THE RIVAL BODIES A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Press Association WELLINGTON, To-day. The hearing was continued yesterday before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., of the case in which James Brennan claimed £SO damages from Messrs F. P. Walsh, Wellington, F. Newfield, Lyttelton, and the Wellington Federated Seamen’s Industrial Union. Plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully prevented from securing employment by the defendants’ threats against his prospective employers. THE RIVALS For the plaintiff Mr. D. R. Hoggard gave the history of the existing rival seamen’s unions and said Walsh had been an unsuccessful candidate for the presidency of the old Wellington Union and had a following among the extreme. His views were not the views of the majority of the union. He had expressed views that were in favour of violence, whereas the great bulk of the seamen favoured constitutional methods. Delay in the registration of plaintiff’s union gave Walsh his opportunity. He gathered 23 friends and applied for registration on January 25, two days before the other’s certificate was issued. Walsh’s application was granted the same day. in record time. He had since maintained his union was the true union and had done his best to stop members of plaintiff’s union from securing employment. A STOP-WORK MEETING James Grayling, an A.B. on the steamer Arahura, said that at a stopwork meeting on March 1, convened by

Newfield, Walsh occupied the chair. One of the members asked what had been done in regard to members of the other union. Newfield was against any drastic measures being taken in regard to the other union and was in favour of working quietly, while Walsh advocated examining all the union books. Witness said that a motion was carried to the effect that all men on the ships who were not in Walsh’s union should be removed. The chairman suggested that the resolution should not be placed on the minutes. Another motion that a week should elapse before the resolution was given effect to was defeated. “ YOU’RE A LIAR!” In reply to Mr. E. P. Hay, for the defendants, witness said he was a member of plaintiff’s union and Newfield had been down to his ship to ask him to change over. A Voice: You’re a liar! The Magistrate: Anyone who uses expressions of that kind will be removed from the court. I will have him committed for contempt of court. Mr. Hay: Who was it who saw you about giving evidence?—l was subpoenaed. But who saw you in the first place? —Mr. Young. The plaintiff reviewed the conversations he had had with the chief officer of the Kaimai in regard to his being signed on the vessel. He refused to change over when asked by Newfield, who said if he were signed on the ship would be held up. He was not signed on and he had been out of work ever since. Mr. Hay: What objection had you to joining the movement to which the great bulk of the seamen belonged?— Because I paid my dues to the end of the month. Plaintiff said that men had been put ashore from the Cygnet and the Ngaio because they would not join Walsh’s union. I The case was adjourned till to-day.