POWERS OF TRADE UNION

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 197, 17 May 1941, Page 13

POWERS OF TRADE UNION

Affairs Of Members DAMAGES CLAIMED IN COURT The question of what powers a trade union has over the private affairs of its members was raised in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, before Mr. Justice Johnston and a jury, when Matthew Gardner and Gordon Partis, formerly miners of Pukemiro, sought to recover £282 and £3lO respectively from the

Northern Miners’ Union as damages for loss of employment. Mr. J. F. Strang appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. F. W. Schramm represented defendant union. Evidence was given that ftt a meeting of the workers at the Pukemiro colliery on June 25 it was decided on a show of hands to contribute a day’s pay to patriotic purposes. At a meeting next day the resolution was confirmed by a majority. Plaintiffs objected to the deduction being made from their wages, and members of the union resolved not to work with them till they paid. As a result plaintiffs stated they bad to seek employment elsewhere.

John Brownley, deputy mine manager, Pukemiro, said that many of the workers had promised contributions prior to the combined appeal being made, and these donations were made independently of fhe union’s appeal Many people objected to making a second contribution, though eventually some of them paid. The union officials told him, witness continued, that the majority of the men refused to work witli the objectors till they paid the contribution. Gardner and Partis were good workers. If they had gone into the mine, the other men would not have done so.

At the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case, Mr. Schramm applied for a nonsuit on the ground that no cause of action had been shown. Plaintiffs had not been dismissed, and the position they found themselves in was due to their own freewill and stubbornness in refusing to carry out the wishes of the majority. Mr. Strang contended that the point at issue was whether the union acted to protect its own interests, or for the purpose of unlawfully interfering with the rights of others. The non-suit point was reserved. Evidence for Defence.

Giving evidence for the defence, George Lawson, secretary of the Pukemiro branch of the union, said that, following the appeal for the ’Sick and Wounded Fund, it was suggested that the union members might like to contribute. A meeting was called, and it was agreed without dissent to contribute a day’s pay. The total contribution was then guaranteed by the president and himself, and when it was learned that there were objectors a second meeting wasjield to confirm the resolution. Eight members dissented, including plaintiffs. It was further resolved not to work with the dissentients till they paid the levy. To Mr. Strung, witness said that plaintiffs could resume work at Pukemiro 'if they agreed to abide by majority rule. John David Garrick, miner, Pukemiro, said he was president of the Pukemiro union at the time of the trouble. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and said plaintiffs were voluntarily unemployed. There was no dictatorship about the union meetings. Every man was given a fair hearing. The vote in favour of the levy was carried unanimously, but there were eight dissentients at the second meeting, when the confirmatory motion was considered. Out of 210 who voted on the proposal that the union members should not work with the plaintiffs, 47 voted against the motion. If tepid swimming baths were wanted, the majority could oblige the minority to contribute toward the cost, witness said. If plaintiffs had explained that they had financial difficulties the union would have met them and let them pay in instalments. However, no request was made. Judge's Comment.

His Honour: Do you sincerely believe that the union has these wide powers over Hie private affairs of its members? —Yes.

His Honour: If yon are wise, you had better get further instructions on the matter. Mr. Schramm will probably advise you.

“The question is narrowed down as to whether the union was justified in taking the action it did to protect its own interests, or whether the union's intention was to injure plaintiffs.” said his Honour, in summini; up. The president and secretary of tlie union had stated that the union had the right to take from the wage-earner, as long as a resolution to tills effect was passed b.v the majority.

That was a novel proposition to him, his Honour continued, and was not authorized by law. If the claim was right, then the union had greater rights than the Government. The jury found that defendant union was not justified in the action it took, and awarded £25 general damages to each plaintiff, £32 special damages to Gardner, and £6O special damages to Partis.

The entry of judgment, was deferred pending legal argument.