UNION ORGANISER'S WAGES.

Auckland Star, Issue 17, 21 January 1932, Page 11

UNION ORGANISER'S WAGES.

DIFFICULT TO COLLECT. J LEGAL RIGHT ESTABLISHED. ! i Judgment was given by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., yesterday afternoon in tin; case in which Ciustave Solomon, organiser of tlio Auckland Buiklero' and General Union of Workers, liad taken action against the union for £61 11/6, the balance of wages which he claimed were due to him up to July 18 when he resigned. In his judgment. Mr. Hunt said that at one time the union had 1400 paying members, and the secretary and organiser were ipaid good weekly wages. Plaintiff had 'been organiser for seven years, and for eouie time up to January 24 last he had been paid £4 15/ per week. Then the contributions collccted from union members in work were not. sufficient to pay the wages of the secretary and organiser, and the time cainc. as tho president, Mr. Botwell, said, to have a "show down." The president met his two officers. There was a conflict of evidence as to what took place. They were all agreed, however, that as it was to go on paying full wages to the organiser and secretary, these officers should collect what contributions they could from union workers each week and divide that sum equally between them. That, went 011 for about five months. Whenever they heard there was a building job in the city or suburbs, one or tho other went out each week to it and collected from the workers what he could. In one week only, did they get £4 each; other weeks it was £3. £2 odd. and once or twice, less than £1. Plaintiff said he had agreed to take this till times got better, when it was agreed that the union was to pay the difference between what he actually received and his wages. This sum amounted £61 11/6, which was the amount sued for. Plaintiff said ho did not expect to get it now, but wanted to establish liifi legal right to it so that lie could get it when the union was better off. , . . The president and the secretary denied that this arrangement was made. They said there was no promise to make up the deficiency, that the secretary and organiser were to divide equally between them all that they could collect from the workers, and that was to be their sole remuneration. "I should have felt inclined to believe this and have given judgment against the plaintiff," said Mr. Hunt, "were it not for two letters written by the secretary. One is dated August 12. 1931. and is addressed to plaintiff. In it the writer says, referring to plaintiff's claim. 'I don't "think that there will be any obstacle placed in the way of it appearinn- in the balance-sheet at the end of September, 1031.' The second letter was dated August 27, and was written to plaintiff's solicitors. It was as follows: 'Having received your letter of the 17th, re Mr. G. Solomon, I called my committee together last evening to conIsider the matter, and after matter

was fully discussed, I was instructed to convoy the findings of the meeting to you, that the union is prepared to pay the amount owing at the rate of £1 per month at present, and in the meantime, if things take a turn for the better, the debt will be pa id as soon as possible.' This is signed by the secretary. "In the face of these letters I do not see that I can come to any other eonelusion than that the plaintiff's version is the correct one.'' The magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs.