UNION MEMBERSHIP

Evening Star, Issue 21721, 16 May 1934, Page 13

UNION MEMBERSHIP

IS RESTRICTION VALID ? A WATERSIDE CASE [pun United Pkbw AmoctatioK.] WELLINGTON, May 15. Whether an amendment to one of the rules of the Wellington Waterside Workers’ Union, purporting to give power to exclude u person from membership at the discretion of the cxecutivc, is iiitra vires or not vr as the substantial question' raised in a case before Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court to-dav. The action was one in which William Henry Hargreaves sought the assistance of the court to obtain admission ns a member of the defendant union. He claimed in addition £SO damages for wrongful deprivation of employment. James Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Waterside' Workers’ Federation , said that the average waterside worker from January to the end of April would earn £2 10s to £2 15s a week. Personal abijity always had a connection with earnings, but ability to get work depended a great deal upon the amount of work the company which employed a. man x*egulavly had iu hand at any particular period. There was no award or industrial agreement at the present time except an understanding by the parties as to the rates of pay and the conditions of employment. iris Honour: then from the union’s point of view there was nothing to prevent any man being employed, whether ho was a, member of the union or not? Mr Roberts: There was no legal preference, but I think I ought to say that, owing to the understanding which exists, the employers do as a rule give preference to our members. The employers and waterside workers have an understanding that the industry cannot carry any more men. Legal argument was addressed to the court on a question of law, and at the conclusion of tho case His Honour intimated that, he would take time to consider his decision.