SEAMEN’S DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 50, 21 May 1927, Page 14

SEAMEN’S DISPUTE

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS THE RIVAL UNIONS Press Association. WELLINGTON, Friday. the evidence it would be impossible to fix the union with responsibility for the attitude taken up by some members of the crew, apparently against the policy of the union as a corporate body. Similarly there is not sufficient evidence to fix Walsh with the liability. There is no evidence of malice on the part of Newfield against J he plaintiff, and the most that can be said against him is that he was a zealous officer on behalf of his own organisation. He only desired to enrol the plaintiff as a member of liis own union. So said Mr. J. Salmon, S.M., today, giving judgment in the recent seamen’s case, which was for the defendants. There was no doubt, the said, that feeling ran high among some members of the industrial union toward the trade union and its members, though it was doubtful whether any of the members thoroughly understood the position. The court was asked to determine, incident "y, which of the two unions was entitled to regard the agreement made with the shipowners on June 22, 1926, as its own agreement. The answer was that neither of the unions was entitled to regard the agreement as its own part’cular and exclusive property. The agreement, by virtue of the statute, would inure for the benefit of those workers for whom it was made. Right to the benefits of an agreement was right of property, and it followed that, right of property was vested in existing members at the time the agreement was entered into.