UNION’S AFFAIRS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 228, 25 August 1938, Page 17

UNION’S AFFAIRS

DISCUSSION IN COURT. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Aug. 24. The affairs of the Auckland and Suburban Local Bodies’ Labourers’ and Related Trades’ Industrial Union, which have been before both the Magistrates’ and the Supreme Court on several occasions during the past 18 months, were again brought before the Supreme Court to-day. There lias been dissension in the union for some years, aiid legal complications followed on efforts that were made to oust the old officials of the union and replace them by new ones. The matter came before Mr Justice Callan by way of an appeal on law and fact from a decision of Mr W. R. McKean, S.M., on March .10. The claim before the Magistrate was brought by the Local Bodies’ Labourers’ Union (Mr Haigh) against Bernard Clews, of Avondale, secretary of the union (Mr Slipper), demanding the return of a motor-car and bank books of the union, which Clews held by virtue of his office. Clews’s defence was that he was still secretary and treasurer of the union, and so entitled to possession of the property in dispute. The Magistrate gave judgment in favour of Clews on the ground that the last election of officers of the union had not been properly conducted according to the rules, and that Clews had not been properly dismissed from his office. Outlining the history of the case, Mr Haigh said that last December Mr Justice Ostler gave a decision that all the executive offices of the union except those of vice-president and sec-retary-treasurer were vacant. At a meeting of the executive on January 24 they dismissed, or purported to dismiss, Clews, who had in his possession a car and certain bank books of the union. He refused to hand them over, and an action was brought in the Magistrate’s Court to claim them. No question had been raised as to the right of the union to have possession of these chattels.

Mr Slippers said that the point was that to give up the car would be to admit the justice of the dismissal. Mr Haigh said tlio issue raised was that the executive had not been validly elected, and he submitted that that xvas entirely irrelevant. The action of the executive in dismissing respondent was confirmed by a general meeting of the union on January 26, when voting was 67 to 5. His Honour: How many members are there in the union ?

Mr Slipper: About 1600. His Honour: There would have been a much larger attendance if members had known that a matter of such importance was coming up. It does not ring true to mo. Mr Haigh said he had submitted to the Magistrate that the legality of the election of the executive could not be tested in the Magistrates’ Court, but that was over-ruled. His Honour said the Magistrate held that a postal ballot should have been taken in accordance with the rules. Mr Haigh submitted that a postal ballot was not applicable. It was complained in the Magistrate’s Court that five uofinancial member’s had voted, but that 'Could not have affected the result. The Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction. Mr Slipper said that a number of irregularities had occurred at the meeting at which the new officers were elected. Decision was reserved.