Timaru reporter will not resign

Press, 24 July 1984, Page 3

Timaru reporter will not resign

Mr Douglas Hodge does not intend to apply for conscientious objection exemption to being a member of the Journalists’ Union if the new Labour Government reintroduces compulsory unionism. “I would not entertain that possibility one iota,” said Mr Hodge yesterday. Part of the Labour Party’s policy on industrial relations is that it will restore a form * of unqualified preference and couple that with the right of conscientious objection. Mr Hodge, the Timaru reporter of “The Press,” resigned from the Journalists’ Union in February and became the first and it is believed the only person to bring a case to the Arbitration Court under the Government’s voluntary unionism .legislation. The Court ruled last week that none of the three defendants cited by Mr Hodge had a case to answer. The union was first defendant, the union’s secretary, Mr J. A. Wilton, second defendant, and Ms Karren Beanland, union delegate at “The Press,” third defendant. After learning of the decision late last week, Mr Hodge had said that he

would consider resigning from “The Press,” but he said yesterday that he had now decided against that. He would consult his lawyer this week with a view to asking the High Court to declare the ban imposed by the union in February, illegal, he said. The full text of the Arbitration Court decision became available yesterday. In it, Chief Judge J. R. P. Horn, said that the standard of proof required was the same as in criminal matters. Even though the proceedings were civil in form, they were penal in nature. Judge Horn said that the material words in section 103 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act were, “No person shall exert undue influence on any worker with intent to induce that worker, etc.” He said that in his opinion, the words “exert undue influence” meant the exercise by a party in a position of considerable strength or authority of that strength or authority. “To impose a ban can mean to exert undue influence. The over-all result differs from the tort concept of intimidation. ‘lnduce’ imports a concept somewhat less than coercion or compulsion. It is ‘to prevail upon.’ Parliament could have used stronger language had it chosen to do so.” Judge Horn said that section 103 (8) of the act gave an extended meaning of “undue influence.” “This does involve the concept of intimidation. I note that the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘intimidate’ as ‘to render timid, inspire with fear; to over-awe, cow, especially to force or to defer from some action by threats or violence’!” It was clear from the evidence that had been given that there had been neither threats nor any intimidatory course of action directed towards Mr Hodge by any of the defendants, so those sub-clauses did not apply in this instance. “Sub-clause (c) of section 103 (8) is more appropriate to the issue in this case. The ban has not at this point caused the worker to lose his employment. He may have lost some indetermi-

nate opportunity of overtime payment. That is insufficiently certain. “He has suffered detriment in the sense of frustration and possibly in selfesteem. I do not, however, consider that the term ‘detriment’ where used in s. 103 (8) covers those factors in this case.” “In short, possible but uncertain loss of some overtime payments and the frustration of filing reports which are not published do not amount in my mind, to loss or detriment for the purposes of proceedings under section 103. “That this is so is no credit to those who imposed' the ban upon Mr Hodge’s work. It is greatly to the credit of the Christchurch ‘Press’,” said Judge Horn. Judge Hom said that in many cases it would be a fair and inevitable inference that the imposition of a ban was intended to induce the worker concerned to become or remain a member of a union or to resign his position. “The difficulty that faces the plaintiff on the facts so far before this Court lies in the fact that neither the union nor any person acting or purporting to act for the union, has ever requested him to rejoin the union. Nor had such people ever requested “The Press” to dismiss him. “It was possible to say, on the evidence before the Court, that the sub-branch of the union at “The Press” had simply said, ‘We will not handle Mr Hodge’s copy’ and no more than that. “The absence of anything other than the inference to which I have referred leaves a gap in the proof required to show that the ban was imposed with intent to achieve any of the objectives set forth in section 103 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d),” said Judge Horn. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs claims. On the question of the effectiveness of the law, Judge Horn recorded the fact that counsel for Mr Hodge, Mr B. J. Petrie, had “referred to the possibility that the statute may be defective for the purposes the 1983 amendment sought to achieve; a person in a position of Mr Hodge may be insufficiently protected.”