Union Rules

Maoriland Worker, Volume 5, Issue 178, 1 July 1914, Page 6

Union Rules

">. mi the' case,' Mariawaiu?' ; FIS-ini li> Union v. for recorefy of, a, - levy on him, . j &n/important'point was raised' relating to ruled, -.which -union . "secretaries should note. The levy, wajj • l struck,-.to 'build, a "defence,,fund" for the Federation of Labour.' The object* of tho union as ,set out in its rules are (1), To effect a,proper understanding' between employers- and employees; (2) to support workmen of the calling in .maintaining, fair'conditions of em- / ploymeut; (3)' To help in reforming any abuses that may oxist in th© calling. Tho. rule relating to levies reads: (6) The union shall have power 'to strike such levies as ma.^' bo "dieemed necessary,, provided.that no.'sucli levy •Shall, bo: struck except at a special summoned meeting. Tlie special summoned meeting waa ( held, and. all, the legal provisions complied -with, outsido one. and, clearly not covered by..the,ijile6. <$ J|J f soynjon) gav| Ui* refreshingly judicial after the biassed pronouncements .Jthajt "havo lately disgraced- the 'N.Zf' Ijeiich. He said: . ■':■•■-■■ ; a~' ' It is very, necessary..that -unions should bo, properly represented ah' the ' Arbitration Court. Most important questions aro. dealt ;. with by that Court relating to workers. Employers can get tho best asistanoe there, and it is vory desirable-that workers should be in a financial position-to-he 'equally well represented. Although tho procedure of the Court is simple, and designed to bo inexpensive, skilled "' counsel aud expert witnesses are often indispensable, aud a small uniofl would bo at a serious disadvantage ia contesting an important case against a-wealthy employer in the absenco'of such a fund. ' "A'fund of this sort' is -therefore _ matter of. vital importance, and one •that unions-should-be encouraged' to ' build tip.''' I' do n6't' , thirik , "'tso'uili would decide that collecting or accuimulating money ".for such a purpose was'not authorised by'the "Act. -But in the present case the three objecte of the union previously'set out do not cover the raising of a fund to ", fight compensation cases in the Arbitration Court, and to be controlle_ by another body, and I think the objec- • tion on .'this. ground' to .the levy must be upheld. I regret having to como to this conclusion/ 'as' the purpose "of the levy was a laudable one* *' /No harm can result, however,' a (simple addition to tbe rules will remedy "the defect. If the rules ara to be amended the moneys to be collected should not be called a "defence, fund,"' but the express purpose to which they are to be applied should -, be explicitly stated in order to aroM trouble in future.' *. .j