A SEAMAN’S CLAIM

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 32, 30 April 1927, Page 11

A SEAMAN’S CLAIM

*£PT OUT OF WORK” STORY OF UNION SPLIT press Association WELLINGTON, To-day. Aence about the disagreement the split in the Seamen's ' • t . tvas given at Wellington yesbefore Mr. J. H. Salmon, C ase was continued in which i*- grennan, a seaman, claimed ;&'*A«rrxze s from Fintan Patrick £'*. t seaman, of WemnKton, and . ic.«-rield, a seaman, of Lyttelton, T»*.' w ;th the ■Wellington Federated n’s Industrial Union of Workers. was made on the ground • olatotift hii d been wrongfully prefrom procuring employment by ’its made ;ainst his prospective -:?“.ers. For Plaintiff -Mr. D. R. :?J£rd appeared, while Mr. E. P. the case for the degiants. NO THREATS MADE

rhe first witness called on behalf .-iedefen e was Maurice Augustus • w fco said that at a stop-work dting of seamen held on March 1, i a fair majority of members ’o’ured peaceful action. A motion * put forward but was not accepted ..." t^e chairman (the defendant ■lab) who advocated peaceful pro- , ianOa. The defendant Newfleld, and spoke in similar terms, % the result that no resolution was A to the meeting. {[r. Hay: Supposing someone said a don was actually passed, but that vas decided not to second it on the n utes? Witness: I should say they were not ji* the truth. Toss-examined by Mr. Hogg ard, said he had never threatened member of Young’s union. He / .id seamen on the Waimea, howr that if they did not transfer at /time it would cost them more to Id so later on. EVIDENCE OF WALSH Evidence was given by Fintan Pat- . Walsh, president of the defendant , n . Witness stated that the quesnof the Arbitration Court first up in New Zealand unions owing the court giving adverse rulings regard to conditions and wages of /men. An antagonistic feeling to- , rd the court grew among members ,i, on the advice of the executive ;ncil, withdrew from the court for of meeting the employers its intervention. On getting .creement the council decided to renter under the Arbitration Act for • : v purpose of protecting its agreement -YOUNG CAUSED DISSATISFACTION” The council's chief reason for doing . was the mistrust it had in its general secretary, who had caused dis-

• usfactien. Young, the general sec-:-ary, refused to carry out the inactions of the council. The Auckland • retary and the Dunedin secretary : Jie deregistered Seamen’s Union .•/omitted the recommendations to • •on of their local unions, with the --suit that the Auckland and Dunedin ala”re-registered under the Act. The Wellington “local,” however, continued to be an unregistered union. On DeTiber 7, 1926, the local executive was v*>n power to do what it considered essary to cope with the existing .rouble. On January 4, 1927, the secretary sported that a new organisation witli new rules had been formed. As a result it was decided to set up a com:saion t« report on the matter and to May the adoption of the new rules intil May. SUPPORT FROM SEAMEN CLAIMED The result of this was that at a special meeting, the recommendaU 3 of the commission were adopted 181 votes to 2. After the meet- :: members went to the union office Young was expelled from his p6sin. Witness quoted figures of memt.'ship to prove that he and his coli&ues were supported in their action seamen generally. Witness considered that shipowner n -re recognising the defendant union, : • not that represented f«ard to the stop-work me*eting held •a March 1, witness upheld the reof previous witnesses for the ■nee. He said it was untrue to say a resolution had been passed at meeting but had not been recorded /eminutes. After witness had been at length by Mr. Hogthe hearing of the case was ad--nje»l until next Thursday, when one ■7*o members of the crew of t* -mal will give evidence.