UNION DENIES LIABILITY

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23323, 8 May 1941, Page 12

UNION DENIES LIABILITY

0 “GILBERTIAN SITUATION” PAYMENT FOR ADVERTISEMENT WITHHELD Differences between the executive of the Canterbury builders’ general labourers, quarry workers, and wool and grain store employees’ union, and the Timaru branch of the union have led to a claim which is at present being heard before Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court. The union and two of its Timaru members are separately denying liability to New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., for £ls 6s worth of advertising and printing. Mr E. S. Bowie appears for the plaintiff, Mr K. G’. Archer for the union (of which Miss Mabel Howard is secretary), and Mr R. A. Young for two men who are named by the plaintiffs with the union as responsible for the debt. 4 The statement of claim says that R. Murray and J. A. Mackay instructed the insertion of a notice in the “StarSun” in June, 1940, "representing that they had the authority from the Timaru branch,” and “pledging the credit of the union for payment.” Mr Bowie said that the plaintiff company had published for the defendant union an advertisement headed “circular to all members” on June 20, 1940, and now wanted to know who was liable to pay for it, as the union itself had refused to pay.

Charles Qoater Baker, Timaru representative for the company, was the first witness, and he said that J. A. Mackay brought him the advertisement for insertion in the “Star-Sun,” and showed him a minute-book proving his authority. Mr Archer cross-examined Baker and contended that “if he had had an. ounce of common sense he would have laughed at Mackay when it was suggested that the union would pay for the advertisement.” He read the advertisement which spoke of selfgovernment for the Timaru branch, and referred to the “autocratic Christchurch' executive.” “If the head executive had spent £ls on such a notice and made it a charge on the union, Timaru would have been the first to complain, and very properly so,” Mr Archer said. He submitted that there was a case for a non-suit. j Mt Bowie said that anyone would think Mr Archer was acting for the executive and not the union. “There is ample evidence that the union itself is responsible,” he said. Mr Archer said that the advertisement of June 20 closely preceded an election in which Mackay was contesting the secretaryship with Miss Howard. “He can make an attempt to prejudice her, but he cannot expect the union to pay for it,” Mr Archer said. Non-suit Refused Mr Bowie said there was no evidence that Mackay had done what Mr Archer suggested. “There is no question that Mackay was carrying out a .decision of the branch,” he said. At this stage the Magistrate said that he. would not allow a non-suit. Mr Young, opening the case for the two . individual defendants, said that difficulties arose between the Christchurch executive and the Timaru branch of the union, and the latter took the view that the executive was being high-handed. The affair came to

a head and the executive was able to stop the Post Office Savings Bank account of the Timaru branch. “They went one step further and made a man called McTier the secretary, an action which subsequently was proved illegal,” said Mr Young. This man had collected £IBO to £2OO “from people who were gullible enough to believe that he was really secretary.” “It’s a Gilbertian situation. Here we have a compulsory union, and the employers do not even . know who the secretary is. The only solution seems to be a separate union for .Timaru labourers. “Miss Howard is an able union secretary; but it seems that she doesn’t run the affairs to the benefit of all members of the union,” Mr Young continued. He added that she had published an article which Timaru members considered to be a gross misrepresentation of a judgment of the Court in Timaru and the Timaru branch thereupon, published their article, the subject of the present claim, and the fact that no action had been taken because of it proved that it was true. After hearing further submissions from Mr Young the Magistrate adjourned the case until to-day.