UNION'S POWERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 114, 16 May 1941, Page 8

UNION'S POWERS

TESTED IN COURT

CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

In tlie Supreme Court at Hamilton before Mr. Justice Johnston and a jury Matthew Gardner and Gordon Partis, formerly miners of Pukemiro, sought to {recover £282 and £310 respectively | from the Northern Miners' Union as damages for loss of employment. Mr. J. F. Strung appeared for the plaintiffs i and Mr. F. W. Schramm represented the defendant union. Evidence was given that at a meeting of the workers iat 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 con- | firmed by a majority. The plaintiffs | objected to the deduction being made ! from their wages, and members of the union resolved not to work with them until they paid. As a result, the plaintiffs stated they had 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 the union's appeal. Many people objected to making a second contribution, although eventually some of them paid. BY VOTE OF THE UNION. The union officials told him, witness continued, that the majority of the men refused to work with the objectors until they paid the contribution. Gardiner and Partis were good workers. If i they had gone into the mine, the other „ men would not have done so. l. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, Mr. Schramm applied for a nonsuit on the ground that no cause of .^ action had been shown. The plaintiffs jjhad not been dismissed, and the position they found themselves in was j due to their own freewill and stul> 1 bornness in. refusing to carry out the wishes of the majority. , Mr. Strang contended that the point 2 at issue was whether the union acted 1 to protect its own interests, or for' the ' purpose of unlawfully interfering with the rights of others The non-suit point was reserved. 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 was held to confirm the i resolution. Eight members dissented, 1 including the plaintiffs. It was further resolved not to work with the dissentients, until they paid the levy. UNION PRESIDENT'S EVIDENCE. To Mr. Strang, the. witness said that | the plaintiffs could resume work at Pukemiro if they agreed to abide by majority rule. John David Garrick, miner, of 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 the plaintiffs were voluntarily unemployed. There was no dictatorship about the I 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 towards the cost, the witness said.. If the 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 ADVICE. His Honour: Do you sincerely believe that the union has these wide powers over the private affairs of its members?— Yes, His Honour: If you 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 the plaintiffs," said his Honour, in summing up. The president and secretary of the union had "stated that the union had the right to take from the wage-earner, as long as a resolution to this effect was passed by the majority. That was a novel proposition to him, his Honour continued, and was not authorised by law. If the claim was right, then the union had greater rights than the Government, The jury found that the defendant union was not justified in the action it took, and awarded £25 genera] damages to each plaintiff, £32 special damages to Gardner, and £60 special damages to Partis. The entry of judgment was deferred pending legal argument.