TRADE UNION FUNDS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 292, 3 September 1908, Page 2

TRADE UNION FUNDS.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO LABOUR PARTY I LECAL. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. In the Chancery Division on July 21 Mr. Justice Neville delivered an important judgment, in which he held that it was a question of policy for trade unions themselves to decide in what way they should apply their funds towards procuring Parliamentary representation. His Lordship also rejected the proposition that Socialism was neces-jiirily inimical to the interests of trade unions. The points were raised ill an action by Mr. \\. V. Osbnrnej secretary of the Walthamstow branch of the 'Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, against the society and its trustees. Mr. Osborne complained that an amendment to the rules of the society carried at the general meeting held in Cardiff in October, 1900, binding the candidates of the union to "accapt and sign the conditions of the Labour party'e.nd be subject to their Whip" was irregularly passed, the meeting having no power to alter a rule within three years of a previous decision, and a proposal to bind the union to. the Labour party having been defeated in' 1903, ,1904, and 1905. He also contended that the rule was uKra vires of "the union, aiid that the latter, could not validly employ its funds in support of the-Labour ' party, whoso principles were Avowedly Socialistic a.nd destructive of trade unionism: . ' ' • : Mr. Justice Neville said he Had given the matter most anxious 'consideration since the dispute was'first brought; to his notice. As to whether the rule was binding' on the society ho was bound to follow the decision in Rosenberg v. Northumberland Building Society, and hold that the certificate of the registrar was. conclusive. The question then "arose whether the rule was within the powers of the trade union. It was conceded that' the application 'of the funds' of the' union towards procuring, Parliamentary representation in the interests of the members was not ultra vires, and, turning'to the objects of the society, his Lordship found that they Vere "to improve the condition and protect the interests of its members, promote better relations between employer and employed, and provide for the safety -of railway work and traffic." It seemed to his Lordship that it was not an unreasonable view of their powers to liflld {rhat they' were entitled to spend money for the'purpose of influencing the course of legislation where it touched those objects, and he did not think it could be said that the money spent in exercising influence must be limited to cases where the members of the .union alone were benefited, because'it was quite obvious that in almost'every case an' Act of Parliament procured for the benefit of a particular, union must, necessarily include the members of other unions. '

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION. \ Upon the footing that it' was justifiable for a trade union to spend its'funds, or part of them, in'procuring Parliamentary representation and_ in seeking to'influence the course of legislation, one had to consider in what way they might do it. They obviously had the right to select their own.Candidates, Jitit in.- the' selection of thei? cindi r dates they had to determine whether it was most-"in their interests that the candidates should go to Parliament as independent, members or whether they should go as stipn porters of one or'other of tho parties which existed there; or, further; whether it would be desirable to'create, as far as possible," a new party, which would devote itself to the furthering pf the interests ,of the class to Which the members'of tho'union belonged.' In considering these courses, one ' must bear in mind the position- of a- member of Parliament. . A member .of Parliament could not bind himself legally, or. morally by any pledge, as to; his' I .action,'.in. future' matters. Ho might declare'himself 'a. member. of a particular. party;; and', 1 , having ";ddne so,' tho general 'opinion might be that he .was .bound to give a fair and reasonable, support to that partj;,"aild, 'in minor, purposes, to subordinate Ms view's to; those of tho majority with whom he had elected to act. ''■At the; same time it' 1 was'very clear'that every member. : of P&rliament owed 'a higher allegianoe than any allegiance to a party, and was bduncl to follow the dictates of his conscience, and-lend hij voice and ..vote, only to srich measures as ho believed to be in the best'interests-'of his country. His position being such, the question arose as to whether ftj would-: be'better'to' .have the'.interest's of the' union represented by ah independent member, by one of the existing parties, or by a new party jf it was formed. But that question must necessarily h'o a question of policy, and if the'course, taken was in-tho interests of tho. members of - the union the wisdom or i folly of the course adopted was iiot. a matter.with which the Courts of-Jus-tice could deal, ■ but must bo left to the consideration, of'the members'of the union themselves. .. . .

;A further point arose here; whether, apart from the question : o£ representation, the ynion was entitled to employ part of its'fundi in' contributing to the. funds of another existing party'in the' State, or a party it deSired to form, and it seemed to his Lordship that if you once got the. point that the promotion of the. interests of/the. members by legislative enactment was. a.-matter. on which the, executive was entitled" to ( ' spend " the mopey of the union it was again a question of policy whether independent candidates supby the; ynion should ho got, or the" support of a party in the State most favourable to or most likely to advance .the interests of tho members of the union. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that, granted tho premises that funds might be employed for influencing legislation, it must be for the union to say how should be employed. . . ' • QUESTION OF SOCIALISM..,- . > There was another' point.' It was'said with regard-to the-Labour party; that' the avowed, principles were such : as to be inimical to the interests of trade unions, and, finally, if successful, to threaten their very* existence. Ho did not think that> in fact'! was so, because, taking the• -views put before him as representing the' views of the Labour party —the intention 'to promote legislation; for the purpose of obtaining the proprietorship by the State of allmeans of production, or that the State shoiild become'-.'the universal employer—it, appeared to. him that the functions of a trade union would not be exhausted, -although they might become purely political, because' one of the principal objections always put forward to the/proposal indjaried was the'.very great: temptation -Which such a system would hold out to tho members of any trade to use tlieir political power in tho selfish interests of their' own trado and class, and neglect the .general interests and tho State. ■ • : i Consequently" it' "was,'" he; thought, impossible to say that the limitation of candidates of the .union, to _ members of: a party which had committed. itself to these views as-to the ultimate rerflodelliiiß of, society was necessarily an alliance with a' party whose objects were inimical to the existence and prosperity of trado unions.; It - therefore seemed to his Lordship that trade unions were, if thoy plfeased, just as much entitled to affiliate themselves in support-- of a Socialist party as they would .be to affiliato themselves in- support of .a Unionist or Liberal party, and, given the right to spend their money on, representation in the House of Commons, ffbw they spent it was purely a question of. policy with which the Court would not concorn itself. The rulo was : not ultra vires, and tho action must bo dismissed with costs.