Claim against union ‘devoid of merit’

Press, 28 February 1981, Page 4

Claim against union ‘devoid of merit’

A claim by a woman let , damages of $10,759 against: the Canterbury Clerical,; Workers’ Union was devoid] of all merit, Mr Justice; Roper has said in a reserved' judgment given in the High 1 i Court. I His Honour entered judg ] iment for the union and re j i served the question of costs, i Kathleen Sigrud Horgan ; ! married, a former wag<3 ‘ clerk at the Christchurcn ' i Technical Institute, claimed : the damages from the union" because she alleged that itr ihad instigated her dismissal]! land hampered her in obtain 1 Hng other employment. < : The case was heard on( 1 three days in September. ‘ ‘l9BO. and decision was re I served. ! Mr A. A. P. Willy ap- 1

jpeared.for Mrs Horgan and!; ;Mr J. R. Milligan for the: 1 ‘union which denied liability. ' ■ “In my opinion Mrs Hor-p igan was very much the't ! author of her own mis- i I fortune.” his Honour said, t “It was certainly not a case t of a militant union deter- I mined to discipline one of! its wayward members.” In the circumstances of If the case he was in no doubtjs that if there had been]) “direct” interference by the|e ■ union, and he questioned'! whether Mrs Horgan sue- e ceeded on that score, _ then J the union was justified in its actions. Even had the union v been at fault he could see t no loss which could not v have been mitigated. n His Honour said that Mrs c Horgan had been a member t of the union -when she'e

joined the institute staff in; •April, 1976. She became! aware of another organisa-] ; (ion _ the Technical Inistitutes Ancillary Staff AssoIciation (T.1.A.5.A.) which! ‘began about 1964. I i -T.I.A.S.A. had been estab-j ilished with the aim that all i ancillary staff at technical 'institutes throughout New Zealand, clerical workers, tradesmen or labourers, would be represented by one negotiating body. Teachersi Were excluded. ■ At the time of Mrs Hor-; •gan’s dismissal T.1.A.5.A.; had not obtained official rec-: ognition although it had; been attempting to get it, since 1969. . ; Six weeks after starting! work at the institute Mrs] Horgan joined

after criticising Clerical] Workers’ Union officials for] what she saw as their inept bargaining in award negotiations. She .advised other members of the staff who were members of the union to join T.1.A.5.A., and not to ; pay their dues to the union. • On June 17, 1976. Mrs ' Horgan resigned in writing ; from the union, because she ‘ said she had joined T.I.A.S.A. which she mistak- J enly referred to as a union. ' Her resignation was accept- i ed by a formal letter of 1 June 21. 1 Subsequently the union : wrote to the institute stating i that Mrs Horgan and others who were employed were i not members of the union, < contrary to the conditions of I the unqualified preference j clause in the award. It asked t

ijthe institute to see that they ’! joined. * -I A series of letters wa< -I sent to Mrs Horgan telling - her that she had to join the )! union. i The conflict between -I T.I.A.S.A. and the union had 1 been exercising the minds oi I other clerical staff and they r appointed a spokeswoman, , On October 21, 1976, they , went on strike. ■ It was the strike which : was the basis of the allegas i tion of intimidation, but iti ■ iwas quite clear that the .jstrike was not initiated, and • ■was certainly not desired, by |!the union. ’ J A curious feature of the , strike was that, according to (one witness, it was the secretary of T.1.A.5.A., who •’suggested that course of ac-< j tion, his Honour said. I The situation had been de* ' fused by the director of the institute giving the strikers “shopping • leave” for the day. There was no doublj that the action of the strikers and their opposition ttj Mrs Horgan’s stand brought) the problem of Mrs Horgan and the unqualified preference clause to a head. v The institute director and others attempted to advise Mrs Horgan to overcome the immediate problem by re* joining the union and resign* ing when T.I.A.S.A. became a legal entity. Union fee? w'ould be refunded. Mrs Horgan was told that! alternatively she could seek exemption from union membership on “conscientious grounds” under the Industrial Relations Act 1973.Neither alternative was acceptable to Mrs Horgan. In October, 1976, Mi’s Horgan and two other workers who had failed to join the union, were dismissed.