RAILWAY UNION DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 242, 12 October 1929, Page 10

RAILWAY UNION DISPUTE.

o COURT INJUNCTION SOUGHT. FOUR COUNCILLORS' ACTION. The rights of four members of the New Zealand Locomotive Engineers, Firemen, and Cleaners'- Association to hold office on the executive council of that body were argued in the Supreme Court in Wellington. Application was made by Robert Carroll, of Auckland, Archibald W. Mack, of Taihape, John James Pennell, of Wellington, and William Pullar, of Dunedin, to have made permanent an interim injunction granted by the Chief Justice, the Hon. M. Myers, restraining the association, its president, Frederick J. Lewin, and the general secretary, William McArley, from proceeding with calling for nominations for an election to fill the places of the plaintiffs on tho council. The plaintiffs claimed that they were duly elected to the executive council as a result of a ballot conducted in accordance with tho rules in March. 1929. At a meeting of the council held on May 22, 23, and 24, they alleged, Lewin wrongfully allowed Carroll to perform the duties of a member of the council. All the plaintiffs except Carroll then withdrew from the meeting, since the date of which tey had not received any notice or been requested to attend any meetings of the council. On July 4, 1929, McArley, purporting to act by direction of Lewin, advised the branch secretaries that nominations were being called for an election to fill the plaintiffs' places on tho council. It was stated that in the cases of Mack, Pennell, and Pullar extraordinary vacancies had occurred through their absence from meetings on May 25 and 27. In Carroll's case, it was stated that he was ineligible to sit on the council. Can-oil, the plaintiffs claimed, had been duly elected in accordance with the rules. The plaintiffs maintained that they were still entitled to hold office. The defence of McArley and tho association was to the effect that Mack, Pennell, and Pullar were all well aware of the meetings of the council subse'quent to that from which, they withdrew, and that they absented themselves without the consent of the president. Reference was made to the award of Mr. E. Page, S.M., in March, 1927, when it was determined that Carroll,- on account of failing . vision, was not eligible to hold office on the council in accordance with rule 77. In April, 1927, the executive council adopted the award as a proper interpretation of rule 77, and, it was alleged, in December, 1928, the grand council confirmed the interpretation. It was claimed that in view of the resolutions of both councils Carroll's election was invalid. Levyin's defence was a denial that he had acted wrongfully in refusing Carroll to sit, and a contention that as Carroll was ineligible to hold office through failing vision it was his - duty to prevent him from sitting on the council. With regard to the other plaintiffs, it was maintained that they had forfeited their seats through absence from meetings. His Honor reserved his decision.