LEVY BY A UNION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15951, 23 June 1915, Page 5

LEVY BY A UNION.

HELD TO BE INVALID.

SUPREME COURT DECISION.

Decision was given by Mr. Justice Hosking yesterday in the caso in* which the Auckland Plumbers and Qasfitters* Union appealed from a decision by the magistrate at Auckland. The latter had decided that a levy of 10s per member, assumed to have been struck at a special meeting of the applicant union, was void, and that a claim made against G. Coria, accordingly, could not be sustained. The ground of the decision, said His Honor, was that the meeting had no power to make the levy because the notice or summons convening the meeting stated that the sum proposed to be levied was ss, and not 10s, and rule 7 of the union provided that the notice convening a special meeting must state the business to be considered. The notice specified the business as follows: —",To discuss notice of motion re strike. That a levy of 5s per member be struck." Tho meeting carried an amended motion in favour of 10s. It was argued in support of the appeal that the rules permitted of amendments being made to any motion brought forward. The rules were silent on the subject. Nevertheless, it might | well be that such a power was implied. But, where the rules of the body required previous notice to be given of the business proposed to be transacted, it was reasonable to conclude that some object was sought to be attained by such a provision. One object was to Elace a limit on the business which might e done. That was the principle which had been adopted in tho construction of regulations under the Companies Acts. The. notice, it was said, was to enable a member to decide whether it would be worth his while to attend and object, or to take steps to defeat or modify the proposals. If he did not attend it might be assumed that he was content to abide by any decision of the meeting properly coming within the scope of the business notified. - Business not notified was deemed to be prohibited. The rule prohibited a levy beyond the limit of that proposed, and the lew of 10s was invalid. The appeal would be dismissed, with £2 2s costs to be paid by appellant to respondent. Mr. A. E. Skelton appeared s for appellant.