Executive Not Property Elected

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 204, 30 August 1938, Page 7

Executive Not Property Elected

JUDGE UPHOLDS MAGISTRATE’S DECISION CASE OF UNION SECRETARY Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Last Night. An appeal of the Auckland and Suburban local bodies’ Labourers’ and Related Trades Union against the Magistrate ’s decision refusing them possession of a motor-car and savings bank books has been dismissed by Mr. Justice CaHan in the Supremo Court. The union, which was represented by Mr. Haigh, claimed from Bernard Clews (Mr. Slipper), its secretary and treasurer, tho return of the car and bank books belonging to the union. Clews maintained that he was still in office in the union and so was entitled to this property and Mr. W. E. McKean, S.M., on March 10 found in his favour on the ground that the last election of officers df tho union had not been properly conducted according to the rules and that Clews had not been properly dismissed from office. In upholding the Magistrate’s decision, his Honour said tho decisive question was whether respondent had at the date of issue of tho summons ceased to be secretary-treasurer. On January 24, 1938, what purported to be a meeting of the executive of the union unanimously decided to dispense with his services forthwith. Respondent said that the body which purported so to dismiss him was not the executive. They had been elected at a general meeting held five evenings before. It was clear that a demand for a postal ballot was made at that meeting and it was not complied with.

“There are some 1600 or more members in the union,” said his Honour, “and the proper view is that provision for a postal ballot was deliberately inserted in the rules in order to give any two members present at the meeting power to prevent important decisions being taken by a meeting insufficiently attended to ensure its decision being safely accepted as truly representative of the wishes of union members. 1 therefore agree with the learned magistrate,” continued his Honour, “that the so-called executive which only five days after its supposed election purported to dismisss respondent, had not been properly elected in accordance with the rules and was not the executive.”

His Honour said the position was aptly described by the Magistrate when ho said an executive must be appointed in the manner prescribed by the rules, otherwise any group of members holding views differing from those of the majority might claim to be the executive. It was clear that the union did not establish that on February 9, 1938, when the summons was issued, it was then entitled to immediate possession of the articles claimed. The appeal would be dismissed with costs of £lO to respondent.