CLAIM AGAINST UNION.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19806, 19 December 1929, Page 9

CLAIM AGAINST UNION.

WATERSIDER REFUSED MEMBERSHIP. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Judgment for plaintiff "was gi\en by Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court j vesterday in the case in which Edward j Gillard proceeded against the Lyttelton j Waterside Workers' Union on an action for mandamus to admit the plaintiff as a member of the union. Plaintiff also claimed £SO damages for loss of work, but his Honour held that there was not sufficient evidence of loss of employment. Mr J. 11. Upham appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr M. J* Gresson, with him Mr K. G. Archer, for the defendants. "On the materials before me, said his Honour, "'it is impossible to find that any agreement between the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation Industrial Association of Workers and the New Zealand Waterside Employers' Industrial Association of Employers, as to limitation of membership under Clause 54 (d) of the award was ever made. It is not even shown that the persons who signed the document said to be 'leading to the agreement' had any authority to act in the matter. I* is therefore unnecessary to consider the question raised whether, if such an agreement harl been made, it would have been valid. I prefer to leave that to be decided iu a case in which it directly arises. I think it right, however, to direct the attention of the parties to the fact that the union is governed by the Act under which it is incorporated, and by its rules made under that Act. I have nothing before me as to the ■ constitution or powers of the two Associations which might have been parties to an agreement under the but, as at present advised, I think it at least doubtful whether these Associations could suspend or abrogate the rules of a local union as relating to the admission of members, even with the sanction of the Arbitration Court. limiting the Membership. "It is proved that in considering applications for membership from the date of the alleged agreement, or shortly thereafter, the committee adopted the practice of giving preference over all other applicants to members of other unions who wished to be transferred to the Lyttelton Union. At its meeting on August 23rd, 1926, the secretary was instructed to reply to a circular from the Federation regarding the transfer of members to the effect that 'the union is limited to 700 members, and that preference is given to applications from members of other Unions to fill vacancies.' lam satisfied that this preference was instituted shortly after the so-called agreement was discussed, and that it has been continued to the present time in pursuance of an arrangement for reciprocity in that regard. This arrangement was, in my opinion, clearly contrary to Rule 5 (b), which states: — "Every such person, provided he is, in the opinion of the executive, of good character and sober habits, shall be admitted to membership on application to the secretary, and subject to the following conditions: —If he applies on or before June 30th in any year he shall pay in advance an entrance fee of 5s and a sum of 30s, which shall be the annual subscription, and thereafter he shall be and be deemed to be a financial member for that year. If he applies after June 30th in any year, but on or before December 31st, he shall pay an entrance fee of os and a half-yearly subscription of los, and thereafter he shall be and be deemed to be a financial member for the remainder of that year.' Character and Habits. "I agree with Mr Gresson that it is for the Committee of Management to determine whether an applicant for membership under rule 5 (b) is of good character and sober habits, but it is now too late to rely upon that objection. If there were ever any question about it the committee had ample opportunity to ascertain the facts and reach a final conclusion upon the plaintiff's character. On the occasions on which the plaintiff enquired whether he had been elected the reply of the secretary was 'No, they are not taking any more members.' No reference to any other reason for non-election was suggested. Then it is gxpressly admitted in the statement of defence that the plaintiff is of good character and sober habits. Moreover, the minutes of the committee show that at its meeting on December 7th, 1927, a resolution was passed that no new members should then be admitted, and that similar resolutions were passed on August 30th, 1928, May 21st, 1929, June 13th, 1929, and August 20th, 1929. Then on September 11th, 1929, the committee resolved to go over the list of applications and select a number of men to be again considered for membership of the Union, and the plaintiff, with others, was thereupon 'picked out' for admission. In thus 'picking out' the plaintiff for membership the committee must be held to have at last given effect to its opinion that each of the persons so picked out was of good character and sober habits. The plaintiff having duly tendered the entrance fee, thus became a member of the Union and entitled to all the privileges of membership. Order Made. ''ln this case I have held that the plaintiff became a member of the Union on September 11th, 1929, and the defendants have refused and still refuse to recognise his status as such member. An order will therefore be made for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the defendants to recognise the plaintiff as a member of the Union and to enrol his name in the register of members. If counsel for the Union undertakes that this will be done forthwith the writ need not be sealed in the meantime. "With regard to the claim for damages, I agree that mere non-compliance with the rules, or even consistent disregard of rules, is not sufficient to found such a elaim, and that there must be evidence not only of wrongful acts but also of resulting pecuniary loss. In this case there is no direct evidence of loss or deprivation of employment. The claim to damages must therefore be dismissed. * "The plaintiff is entitled to costs on the middle scale as on a claim for £3OO ; and £7 7s for second day." An order was made for discovery fee ' of £1 Is, inspection £3 ss, with disbursements and witnesses' expenses to be fixed by the Eegistrar.