LEVY ON WORKERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 November 1922, Page 5

LEVY ON WORKERS.

OBJECTION TO PAY IT. IMPORTANT POINT INVOLVED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Nov. 6. A case of great interest to unionists is being heard in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury. Five members of the Wellington Watersider*’ Union are each claiming a mandamus ordering the union to recognise them a* members, and an injunction restraining the union from 'representing them as non-members, and £5Ol damages.

Mr. Watson, counsel for plaintiffs, explained that the case arose out of the union’s demand for £1 annual levy, to which plaintiffs and many others objected on principle, and which had to be paid before they were permitted to work on the waterfront. They had no intention of attacking unioni*iu a* such, but claimed that the imposition of the levy was the wrongful act of a small coterie which had control of the local union and had exceeded its legal powers. Out of 8000 members in New Zealand only 1400 had paid the levy. It appeared that the Wellington Union took a more drastic view of the matter than other unions.

The levy was stated to be for a defence fund, but the minutes of the 1920 conference showed that it was intended to be a strike fund estimated to produce £BOOO a year. There had been no *pecial meeting of the union to decide whether the levy should be imposed but at several meetings there was considerable uproar when the levy was under consideration. The imposition of the levy was confirmed at the 1921 conference and counsel declared that the Wellington Union, at the beginning of 1922,. set out to disregard all the rules. Wellington, Last Night. The waterside levy case was continued this afternoon. Telley, in the course of evidence, said that since he was barred by the Waterside Union he had been h'awking vegetable*, but had been making very little money out of this work. Sir John Findlay asked if witness had made money out of bookmaking. Mr. Perry strongly objected to the question as being one which might result in the incriminatiori of witness, and His Honor upheld the objection. Charles Patrick Kavanagh said his great objection was to the manner in which the decision to impose a levy was arrived at. Those who differed from the officials were shut up. Robert Gould said he had refused to pay the levy unless a plebiscite of tne New Zealand watersiders was taken. Wh’cn asked specifically what the levy was for various excuses were given by union officials, but he gathered the idea that it was to send a delegate to America and Europe. The levy had caused much discontent on the waterfront of Wellington and other ports. Sir John Findlay: you know that out of 1800 members at Wellington only you five refused to pay the levy? Witness: You would not like to say what kind of coercion was used to make them pay. Some watersiders had gone to Australia rather than pay the levy. Witness admitted lie was a Socialist and had been to gaol during the war, being a conscientious objector. After his release the union elected him chairman of the disputes committee. Mr. Perry: And now the union seeks to blacken you. Witness: Not the union, but the officials. Michael Leddy, another plaintiff, said he had, gone to work on the waterfront in 1914. He had refused to pay the levy, because he considered it “a proper swindle from start to finish.” He objected to wearing the badge, and he considered it an insult to decent men to ask them to wear it.