DISPUTE ON WATERFRONT

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 960, 1 May 1930, Page 1

DISPUTE ON WATERFRONT

Watersider Seeks Damages

"VIRTUALLY DECLARED BLACK”

Union Involved in Action

STATING that his client,, a waterside worker, had virtuallybeen declared “black” by members of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, Mr. J. F. W. Dickson alleged in the Supreme Court this morning that the union and another waterside worker, Robert Irvine, had been responsible for the discontinuance of the employment of his client on the waterfront. One witness told of a threat to hold up work on a steamer should the plaintiff, Thomas Moylan, known also as f Thomas Miles, be employed.

Two -witnesses on behalf of plaintiff had to be subpoenaed to appear in Court, and cne witness informed Mr. Justice Smith that he was anxious not to incur the enmity of the men on the waterfront. Plaintiff claimed damages at the Tate of £6 a week from March 25, 1929, to the date of judgment, damages to the sum of £3OO, because he would not be able to continue employment as a waterside worker, and general damages to the sum of £2OO. In the statement of claim, it was alleged that, on or about March 25, 1929, and on every occasion when work was offering—practically daily until the date of the issue of the writ—the defendant union and its servants or agents, particularly Irvine, had refused unlawfully to permit any master or employer to employ the plaintiff, ft was further alleged that, in or about the month of April, 192'J, the plaintiff's contract of service had been interfered with by the union and Irvine inducing or causing the employers to discharge the plaintiff before the- lawful termination of his service. This allegation referred to the “Port Napier incident” of April 4, when It was claimed Irvine told the plaintiff that he would not obtain more work on the wharves, and to ipril 15, when the men refused to work with plaintiff on the Tofua after Irvine had spoken to them. It was alleged that the masters caused to terminate the employ of the plaintiff were the Union Steam Ship Company and Nearing and Company, Limited. ALLEGATIONS DENIED The allegations were denied bjj the union and Irvine. It was admitted that Moylan was a member of the union, and that Irvine was a representative of the union. Mr. J. J. Sullivan and Mr. P. J. O’Regan, of Wellington, represented the defendants. Mr. Dickson described the circumstances of the claim as a “commentary on the brotherhood of man.” Moylan had virtually been declared "black” by the members of the union. The dispute had been caused, in the beginning, when plaintiff’s wife had written to a man named O’Brien, a foreman of a shipping company, enclosing a £ 1 note. Objection had been taken to the letter, which apparently had been regarded as an inducement for Moylan to be given work. Moylan had denied sending the letter, and it was plainly in his wife’s writing. She had been in a precarious state of health when she wrote the letter. The plaintiff had worked on the Port Napier on April 3 and until 11 a.m. on April 4. The defendant, Irvine, then came on the scene and the wen announced they would not work with Moylan. Irvine was known as the “walking delegate” of the union, and his duties were to see there were no breaches of the award in the engagement of labour. The £1 sent to the man O’Brien had begun the quarrel. , “It was really a premium to the foreman to give the man a job,” said Mr. O’Regan. “MUST CLEAR HIMSELF” Moylan, continued Mr. Dickson, had been told that he would have to clear himself with the union before he could regain employment. Counsel wanted to say publicly that he had been compelled to subpoena two witnesses. “Irvine seems to have been a malignant spirit as far as my client is concerned,” counsel added. “The men refused to work with Moylan after Irvine adS dressed them on April 15. On the

Totua, the men began to throw sticks and staves at him. “It was dangerous and Moylan had to go between decks. Moylan has humbled himself to regain employment. His wife has taken the blame for the position and has written the union pleading for means to support herself and her two children. The appeal was merely tabled.” Captain H. A. Anderson, wharf superintendent to the Union Steam Ship Company, said Moylan had left the Tofua because the men refused to work with him. “He has not since been employed by my company,” witness said. “I rang Irvine on several occasions saying I was going to employ Moylan. He said the job would be ’stuck up’ if I did. The company could not afford to have that happen for the sake of one man.” Mr. O’Regan: You knew, before the incident of the Tofua. that O’Brien had received a letter containing a £1 note.—l did. Captain Anderson -would not say if he thought the action improper. His Honour informed the witness that there was no need to say whether such a letter would make a man unpopular among his fellow-employees. Witness knew Moylan had denied sending the letter. INJURY FROM UNION ? “I would rather not answer this question.” declared Captain Anderson when Mr. O’Regan put another question to the witness. “I have to work with these men on the wharf. His Honour: It is a most astounding suggestion that the union can injure Captain Anderson. Mr. O’Regan: Of course it can’t injure him. “I am positive it can,” said the witness. “It can give me a ‘go-slow’ attitude. I did not come here of my own free will. Irvine spoke of Moylan to me as a ‘pimp to the police’.” A stevedore of the Cunard branch, Captain G. E. Pox, said he had been told, when there was a stoppage of work on the Port Napier, that the men objected to working with the plaintiff. He was not certain if Irvine was there, and he gave Moylan time off to clear himself with the union. Moylan did not return at the time stated. In evidence, the plaintiff said he was known as “Paddy Miles” on the waterfront. He had been a member of the union for eight or nine years and had received about £6 a week on an average during his employ. Plaintiff said he had explained to Irvine that his wife wrote the letter. Irvine replied in abusive language. Irvine had asked other watersiders why they worked with plaintiff and had said he was violating union principles. On the Tofua, he had been struck with pieces of timber. Moylan detailed his negotiations with the union. One stop-work meeting was extremely hostile to him. He made many efforts to obtain work. His wife was not in good health, and he had been receiving charity. Mr. Sullivan: Do you think O’Brien, if he accepted your bribe, would give you preference in work? —I can’t say whethere he would or not. Plaintiff denied that there had been trouble on the Port Napier before Irvine arrived. On the Tofua, the men refused to work with him before Irvine appeared. He had not returned to work because he had not cleared himself with the union.

Mr. Sullivan produced a letter written on April 20 in which plaintiff said he did not suggest a “conspiracy” in which the union was concerned. Mr. Sullivan suggested that in his letters •to the union between April and November, plaintiff had complained against the employers, and not against the union or Irvine. Plaintiff admitted that he had not heard Irvine tell an employer not to give him work. (Proceeding.)