A UNION LEVY.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 November 1922, Page 4

A UNION LEVY.

WATERSIDE CASE CONTINUED. INTERTSTING EVIDENCE. By Telegraph.—press AMOdstlon. Wellington, Nov. 7. Tn the Waterside Union case William Charles McGee, one of the five tiffs, said he had been a 11 years. He described meetings at which the levy was discussed. He took round a requisition for a special meeting on the subject. It had 130 signatures, but he received no reply to the requisition after handing it to the secretary. In February he offered 24a subscription to the assistantsecretary, who said he would take the levy and let the subscription stand over. Later, witness ofi'ered full payment, but it was refused and he was told he must appear before the executive to explain his attitude towards the union, thia being due to his action in distributing the federation balance-sheet. William H. Bennett, manager of the Co-operative Association, said he knew a levy had been struck and that there had been difficulty in collecting !t. The secretary. Bruce, told him a number of men were unfinancial and, under the agreement, not eligible for employment. He had been told that Tilley,, one of the plaintiffs, was not a member of the union, but not that the other plaintiffs were unfinancial. Regarding the inability of the others to get work he understood some of the union had approached the foreman.

USE OF THE LEVY. BASIS OF DEFENCE FUND. Wellington. Last Night. The waterfliders’ levy case was continued this afternoon. To Mr. Perry, Roberts said it was not an unusual thing for delegates to go to i a labor conference with free hands. The 'delegates had no mandate. Witness did not christen it a fighting fund; some New Plymouth men gave it that name. A defence fund was a more suitable name. His Honor: We fight to defend ourselves. Then many paid the levy voluntarily. Louis Glover, president of the Watersiders’ Union, said badges were reintroduced in 1920, but it was not compulsory to wear a badge. Its purpose was to enable the labor foremen to know who were members of the union. The reason certain men were brought before the executive was because the union, and not the executive, decided on such a course. The vote on the levy was taken in a perfectly fair manner. The statement that the balance-sheet was kept from members was not correct. Plaintiffs were the only men left who had not paid the levy. Mr. Watson: Are you a revolutionary socialist? Witness: Mil at do you mean by that term? It is too vague. Tell me your definition and I will answer your question. Mr. Watson: What do you mean by job action ? Does it mean action on a job to the detriment of the employer? Witness said that if there were men who held that to be job action he did not associate himself with such men. Mr. Watson asked witness if he had not spoken at the 1920 conference of “putting into operation on a job industrially all they accuse you of doing: that is the only effective way to treat these parasites.” Witness: That sounds all right. Mr. Watson: Gentlemen of the jury, T hope you will note that. Mr. 'Watson: You are also an advocate of a council of action? "Witness: Yes. In reply to further questions witness said it was not a strike fund, but a defence fund. As for the levy, it waa his duty to put into operation, as far as possible, any resolution carried. Sir John Findlay, for the union, said the levy had been discussed hy the men at various meetings, and it was approved of by large majorities. It waa a levy made in the interests of the men themselves, and was intended to protect them and their interests. The hearing will be resumed to-mor-row. -