PREVENTED HIS EMPLOYMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 March 1911, Page 5

PREVENTED HIS EMPLOYMENT

A WHARF LABORER’S CLAIM. AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. [BY TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, This Day. Judgment was given by Mr Justice Cooper to-day in the action brought by James Flowers against the Wellington Wharf Laborers' Union. Plaintiff’s grievance was that the Union had unlawfully excluded him from membership and he asked the Court for: (1) The issue of a writ of mandamus, commanding the defendant union to recognise him as a member, and (2) £175 damages. Plaiptiff stated that while a member of the union, the latter, through its officers, notified the employers of labour on the wharf that he had ceased to be a member and had become ineligible for employment on the wharf, except in breach of the preference clause of the union’s award.

The defence of the union was that Flowers was in arrears with subscriptions to the extent of £1 12s 6d. The summons was actually issued for this amount but the case was* withdrawn, counsel having advised the union that "a defaulting member had to be struck off the books in accordance with Statute, when twelve months in arrears. The union accordingly offered to readmit Flowers on payment of 12s arrears.

Plaintiff denied being in arrears at all, and fruitlessly sought from the union a detailed statement as to how his arrears bad been made up. He was a member of the union in 1906 before preference was granted, but dropped out and was in , default with, payment of subscriptions; In 1908, when preference was granted, he called at the office of the union, tendered 3s fid, and said he wished to be placed on the books. It was proved that the Union in its returns to the Labour Department in 1909 had included him, but nevertheless f he defence was set up that the 3/6 referred to was only part payment in liquidation of arrears. After the notice to employers. Flowers tendered 5/6 to the union (without prejudice to his right that he was still a member) for admission and three months’ contributions, but it was refused. The Court held that all the circumstances went to show that the union b’’' 1 regarded him as a member and had issued the notice to employers in the mistaken idea of the legal position. Flowers was, the Court, held, still a member of the union, which was ordered to enrol hhu as a member and pay £SO damages for loss of employment suffered by plaintiff.