BOYCOTT OF MINER

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 974, 17 May 1930, Page 11

BOYCOTT OF MINER

UNION VICTIMISATION DAMAGES AWARDED BY COURT From Our Own Correspondent HUNTLY, Friday. The Huntly Magistrate’s Court ivas thronged with interested spectators today when Thomas Bertright Hancock, ot Pukekapia, a miner, proceeded against the District Miners Council of the Northern Coalmine Workers’ Union for £IOO general damages for loss of employment through alleged victimisation. Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., presided. Mr. T. J. Fleming, of Auckland, appeared for plaintiff and Mr. P. J. O’Regan, of Wellington, for detendant. In his statement of claim plaintiff set out that while a member of the defendant union he was, until January 9, 1930, in the employment of the Renown Collieries, Limited. On that date he alleged that defendants, wrongfully and by threats, compelled the manager of the company to dismiss him. On January 13, 1930, the union decided to remove its restriction against the employment of plaintiff and the company reinstated him on January 15, 1930. On January 28, plaintiff alleged, defendants again wrongfully caused the company to suspend him and to refuse to employ him again until he should comply with the defendants illegal demands that he should pay an illegal levy of ninepence in the pound out of his earnings for the assistance of the Australian miners who werq on strike. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendant union and the other defen dants conspired together on January 9 and 28 and resolved to deprive him of employment unless and until he should pay the levy referred to. riaintiff said that in consequeuce of defendants’ acts he had been deprived oi his employment up to the present. He therefore claimed £IOO general damages. NO BALLOT ON LEVY

Mr. Fleming said no levy could be imposed to support a strike and a limit was put to levies for legitimate purposes. No ballot was taken on the question of a levy. A few of the officials put their heads together and decided on a levy, fdaintiff was a man of some education and he resented the manner in which the levy was imposed. He refused to pay the levy on the ground that the union’s action was opposed to the elementary principles of natural justice, which no body of men had the right to infringe. Counsel said Hancock and three others who refused to pay the levy were boycotted. The mine manager w-as told that if they were not dismissed all the other men would go onstrike. A son of plaintiff’s was refused admission to a dance. Plaintiff had suffered for standing up for the right of unionists to take a stand against the coercion of any coterie of men who said their fellows should do this or that.

In admitting that he had no legal case to answer, Mr. O’Regan said it was only a question of the assessment of damages. “WILFUL AND INEXCUSABLE” The magistrate said the defendant’s act was wilful and inexcusable. To raise a levy for a strike was illegal and no levy could be put ou the men without a ballot being taken. This had not been done. Hancock opposed this boycott as a free man would do, and local feelings did not enter into the question at all.

flm Statutes, added the magistrate, did not give the union any authority to make a levy except under certain conditions. Sympathy for and anger against the individual did not count and nobody could intimidate, or threaten, or decline to work with any fellow unionist provided that unionist complied with the law. This coercion was wrong, morally and legally, and contrary to British justice. Hancock was fighting for the elementary principles of justice, and the union accepted the responsibility of illegally thwarting that action.

Mr. Levien said lie had no hesitation the full am °unt claimed, i-iuo, and costs amounting to £l9 2s