UNION RULES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16550, 14 May 1914, Page 9

UNION RULES.

ASSISTANCE TO OTHER WORKERS UNLAWFUL. REGISTRAR GIVES HIS REASONS. Some little while ago the Canterbury Drivers' Union forwarded its rules to Wellington in order to have some amendments approved. . When the rules were returned by the Regis- • trar of Industrial Unions (Mr *F. J. ■ Rowley) it was found that an oldstanding rule which set forth one of the objects of the Union as being " To assist other workers in difficulties " had been deleted. Mr Hiram Hunter, the secretary of the Union, took up the attitude that the Registrar had not legal power to revoke a rule which had previously. been approved and registered, and a correspondence ensued upon this point. In' the course of this correspondence the Registrar stated that a recent decision of the Supreme Court had influenced him in the attitude he had taken up. Existing legislation, "it appeared, offered very little guidance oh the subject; the statute most nearly affecting the caso setting forth, at the end of a statement of specific purposes for which a Union might be formed, a general permission to include,in its objects anything else of a "-lawful"" character. <■■'■' ~.' The question at issue, therefore, was whether the assistance of " other workers in difficulty," which may be' taken as a euphemism lor ''other workers on strike, - ' was lawful or unlawful. In response to a request that he should: forward a copy of the decision on which he relied,' the Registrar sent to. Mr Hunter a copy of the judgment of the Chief Justice in the test case brought by the Wellington sociation, where the question, at'lssue was whether the funds of.the* AJsspciation could legally be used .to.-, strikers in an industry not allied ti> the typographical industry. • The Chief Justice held that the funds could not be so used, basing bitdecision chiefly upon the. Association's I rules, while, Mr Justice Chapman, who., also gave judgment on tho case, came to a similar conclusion. Mr-Justice Chapman in his judgment, stated that it was n "serious question" wheth-n----the assistance of strikers by was dr.. was.not lawful.. Neither ~ of. the two judges has specifically settled the vexed question as- to whether- or not tho assistauce of strikers bj'' a s Union is lawful, so far as the 'average layman can glean from the judgments a* officially reported, but the tenor of the Chief Justice's deliverance subject certainly seems to lend weight to the assumption that if called upon to decide the question he would decrun such assistance unlawful.".,The Union, and other Unions whose rules have bee i) similarly amended by the Registrar, are inclined, it would, See'iir, to accept the Registrars ruling oh the subject without further debate. .•'.."■