TRADE UNION LEVY.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 222, 18 September 1919, Page 7

TRADE UNION LEVY.

VALIDITY CHALLENGED. PLAINTIFF ALLOWED DAMAGES. Judgment was given at the Magistrate's Court this afternoon by Mr. J. VV. Poynton, S.M., in a case of great interest to members of trades unions. The plaintiff, Joseph Colvin (Mr. "Fleming) sued the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union (Mr. J. J. Sullivan) to recover £25 damages.

This was a case in which a levy of one shilling was made upon members of the union. Plaintiff objected to pay the levy on the ground that it was not -made in accordance with the rules of the union. His quarter's fees. were declined because the shilling levy was not added, and finally he was declared unfinancial, which he alleged resulted in his losing employment at his trade as a wharf labourer, hence the claim for damages.

His Worship, before giving judgment, said: "I have received a letter from, one of the -witnesses'who gave evidence in thi3 case. It is obviously written with the intention of prejudicing the Court against the other side. Despite the warnings of many judges and magistrates such epistles continue to be sent to them. They are most improper. I intend in this case, and in all subsequent cases, to forward the letter to the person attacked. This course will probably tend to stop the sending of such mischievous and unfair documents."

Mr. Poynton then reviewed the evidence at considerable length. He said he must find—(a) That the quarterly subscription of 5/ was tendered twice, and it was each time refused because the extra shilling was not added to it. (b) In consequence of not having his quarterly ticket through such refusal the plaintiff was regarded by the president and secretary and many members of the -union sis unfinancial, and was stated by the president to be so to Mr. Huff and Captain White. (c) The statement of Noakes caused plaintiff to 'be dismissed from his work by both employers, (d) The plaintiff suffered loss by such action. His Worship said he felt sorry to have to give judgment against defendant. The object of the levy was obviously so beneficial that any reasonable person should have supported it without a ballot. However, plaintiff was entitled to have a referendum on the question, and when the proposal was carried by 604 to 18 he should have loyally submitted to it. Plaintiff brought a good deal of trouble -on himself, and that being so, he would 'not be awarded as much as he claimed. Mr. Poynton added:—"He appears to have been a Faust to another's Mephiatophelcs, but the Union used rather a big whip to discipline him. Now that the matter has been dealt with, I hope the old man will not further suffer by reason of his ill-advised attitude. In the words of a sincere friend of Unionism, our present Chief Justice, in a similar case, 1 may add that I hope the defendants will show that there is true brotherhood of labour by i;-,ing their endeavours to get plaintiff reinstated in his employment, and not take up an attitude of ill-will towards him, an attitude which is generally associated with the doings of a tyrannical trust." Judgment was given for plaintiff for; £10, "with coets. Security for appeal was fixed at £10 10/. I