MEMBERSHIP OF A UNION

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21123, 26 March 1934, Page 9

MEMBERSHIP OF A UNION

WATERSIDERS' CLAIM j I jtih;ment fok plaintiffs j I -. -._ i i i l HrliUl. TO TBI TRim! ; TIMARU, March. '2 4. | Holding that plaintiffs were entitled ito membership, which had been denied them. Mr Justice Kennedy in a reserved judgment to-day gave a decision in favour of George Richard Blatch and Joseph Kyle, of Timaru, who proceeded in the Supreme Court recently against William Craig, William Watson. Alfred Edward Saunders. Arthur Henry Smith, Frederick Kaye, Alfred Savage, and George Niall. all of Timaru, and together the committee of management of the Timaru Wharf Labourers" Industrial Union of Workers. Damages amounting to £2O each and a writ of mandamus directing* that plaintiffs should be admitted to membership of the union were given. In iiis judgment his Honour said that the rules of the union m 1931 provided that it should consist of persons of good character and sober habits, employed, or intending to be employed, as waterside workers at Timarii, and that any such persons should, subject to such provisions respecting' limitation of membership as might be contained m any award or industrial agreement, current at the time to which the union was a party, be admitted to membership on application and on payment of certain fees. The rules were amended on January Hi. 193 H. to provide that the right of membership should be further subject to any limitation contained in "any agreement, under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act. 1933, current at the time, or if there is no such provision, [subject to the consent of the executive." "No question arises in these proceedings as io the c!l'ect of the rule made in January, 19.'S.V said his Honour. "because if the plaintitl's j acquired a right to membership m i !!>:U in P.i.i'J after the cancellation j ot the award, but before January 1(1. \ !9:;.'i. they will not lose that right by ! waiting to give the union an eppor- . tunny of admitting thorn when the j •numbers fell below the number which! the onion chinned u';s the limit of | • membership The question, them is. i 1 did the plaintiffs aequo e a right to i Light ill' Admission , 1t..;1i the plaintiffs were capable ana ! reliable men. wiio were formerly j members of lhe union. Admittedly j ' they were, and are. of good character j 'ami sober habits, employed, or intend- j mg to be employed, as waterside ' 'v. orI;e: ■■■ at Timaru. They were ac-| ■'eordin-'tv en!,tad to admission unless: ! ■ oiae va'ai limitation was proved i i •■contained in any av. aid >-v industrial \ : agreement current at the time to i ; which < in- union was a party." There | rva- ei rt.rnly no number named in ex- ; jpn i- ; terms'.;, a limit m any award j i proved, and there was no proof of any [ ! iiniiinriiil agreement containing a ] limitation. • "1 am tin il.de (o hold that an agree- • men! between the federation and the ! as-oeiatinn or a decision of the Local i Disputes Committee, if there was no ! agreement, but a dispute as to the ! i cancellation or variation of a limitalin.u previously agreed upon b-'tween I ! ihe fcdeie'iiiu an i the as oeiat;on has i been pnwid. ; ■•[n vi, w of the t \ iclence tin- dam- ■'.-,:■. , claimed ate reasonable, and the ' 'plaintitl's wiH each nave judgment for! • ego against the defendants. The : iplauitdb. are entitled to, and each will t ! have, a mandamus directed to tlm ,[r- j I, im!;i:i! a , o'lu'iids of t lie union to " ; ~. ,1 tho pl.niitilt a:' membeis of the j line'., up, :i pie, men) by 'hem of the I ,re crib' d be Ihe pi. in.tills will h;i\ e lodge.en' again I the defendants ' i,,r eo: t , 'according to : cale as on a ! claim for .f. iOO. with disbursements. land wituc.- oncu-c. to be fixed by I tin.- i-i ;;i.-ir..r "