ACTION FAILS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 59, 11 March 1938, Page 11

ACTION FAILS.

UNION AFFAIRS. SECRETARY'S DISMISSAL. QUESTION OF THE RULES. Judgment in the action by the Auckland and Suburban Local Bodies' Labourers , Industrial Union of Workers claiming from its former secretary Bernard Clews, the return of a motor ear and bank books, or alternatively ±&A 0 and £10 damages, was given bv Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., yesterday afternoon in favour of the defendant, •with costs.

In reply to the union's claim of dismissal of defendant as secretary on January 24 by the union executive, endorsed at a subsequent general meeting, Mr. T. B. Slipper (for defendant), followed up the suggestion of irregular procedure at the#meetings of the union made in his cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses, by the contention that defendant's dismissal was irregular and that defendant was therefore, by the rules, still the union's secretary and as such entitled to custody of the motor car and bank books. Evidence of Defendant. Defendant gave evidence that he had been secretary of the union for 20 years. According to the rules produced the secretary was elected for a period of three years, and could be dismissed only by resolution of the union, subject to three months' notice. He had been re-elected secretary in 1937. Witness said that opposition to him was raised by a group of some 25 men only, and his notice of instant dismissal was given, as stated by Mr. McLennan, by an executive which had not been elected in a proper manner, in that several men who were not members and others who were not financial were allowed to vote. A request for a postal ballot was made, but was refused.

In giving judgment for defendant, his Worship said this union had recent experience of a Supreme Court decision, aid care had to be taken to have the rules of the union observed in the election of officers through which the union could legally act. In the circumstances disclosed he could not say that the men who claimed to be the executive really were the executive. As he saw the position defendant had been re-elected in 1937, after having been previously elected over a period of years, and he was entitled to show that the persons who dismissed him had not been raised to the position according to the rules of the union.