UNION LEVY INVALID.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18281, 23 December 1922, Page 9

UNION LEVY INVALID.

WELLINGTON WATERSIDERS.

MONEY FOR FIGHTING FUND.

FEDERATION'S POWERS EXCEEDED.

DAMAGES FOR FOUR PLAINTIFFS.

iBY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

WELLINGTON. Friday. Judgment was given by Mr. Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court this morning in five actions brought against the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union as the result of the. union striking a levy of £1 a year upon its members.

Reviewing the. case, His Honor said each plaintiff claimed he was a member of the defendant union. While ho was a member his name was wrongfully removed by the union from the register of members, and he was wrongfully excluded from the union. and was prevented from participation in any benefit accruing from the union's in- ! dustrial agreement and from obtaining I work as a watersider. Each plaintiff claimed a writ of mandamus commanding the union to recognise him as a member and an injunction rest raining the union from representing that he was not a { member, and a sum of £500 as damages. I At the conclusion of the hearing the j jury was asked to find in each case what I damages the. plaintiff should be awarded, and it was agreed that all other questions should be left to the Judge, with power to draw an inference, apart from the. question of law, whether tho action for damages could be maintained. ti The case turned upon the:validity of " the lighting or defence fund " "levy which the union purported to make and of the steps to be subsequently taken in regard to the plaintiffs' membership. In December, 1920, the annual conference of the Waterside Workers' Federation decided that an industrial fund of £1 a year, leviable on each member, should be inaugurated. It was not competent, said His Honor, for the federation to make any levy direct upon members of the individual unions of which tho federation was formed and effect could bo given to the decision only by each union itself imposing the levy upon its members. Moreover, at the time of the conference, tho federation had no rule, authorising it to make such a levy upon the unions. Mr. Roberts, tho secretary of the federation, had snid that he was aware of tho fact that a rule would be required to authorise the federation to make the levy and explained that the levy was to bo regarded as a voluntary ono until the rule, justifying it should be registered. The resolution adopting the recommendation was couched in terms implying no consciousness of infirmity and afforded no indication that the levy was to be regarded as voluntary. Many members of the unions refused to regard the levy as binding, the Auckland and Onehunga Unions in particular declining to endorse it, whether it was deemed voluntary or otherwise. Large numbers of members of the various unions had paid before the conference, of 1921. Not Legally Enforceable. After tracing the further history of the matter, His Honor proceeded : Now I fee] no doubt that the £1 levy purporting to have been made by the union on its members was invalid and at no time became legally enforceable, inasmuch as it was not made in accordance with the rules of the union, but in contempt of these careful provisions, common in substance with tho regulations by which most, if not all, other societies, whether corporate or incorporate, govern themselves so that business shall not be, sprung upon the meetings or transacted surreptitiously. " No sufficient notice was given of the meeting by which it is said the levy was struck. The advertisement intimating that the meeting wa.s to be called gave less than 24 hours' notice, and did not disclose that such a thing as a levy was to be proposed." It was urged that the plaintiff Gould and others, by attending the meeting waived any objection to its validity. That might be a sound point if the meeting had been called for a specific purpose and the notice was too short or was otherwise irregular, but in the present, case that was not the position. The meeting was convened as an ordinary meeting and its business was announced to be " execu tive's recommendations and general." Ho did not think that a person attending such a meeting, so convened, was precluded from afterwards objecting that, in addition to the business announced, the meeting proceeded to transact other business which could only be transacted by a special meeting. It was also said that the resolution im posing tho levy was confirmed by a subsequent meeting, but all that these subsequent meetings really indicated was that a rnajoritv of the members were willing to abide "by the levy, whether it was valid or not. and refused to allow it to be questioned. What the Minutes Disclosed. " Notwithstanding the evidence of Messru. Roberts and Glover in explanation." His Honor continued, " the minutes of the conference proceedings on the subject of the fighting fund are, I think, more eloquent, and leave on my mind the impression that the fund might, if it were thought fit, be used in aid of strikes as well as for other purposes. I do not, however, think it necessary for the purposes of this case to determine tho precise object or objects of the fund, or whether it is illegal. I think, however, that making the levy whs outside the powers of the federation at the time it was msxie. " At the hearing of the case this was really net denied. The resolution of the conference was skilfully worded and rather avoids language implying a direct imposition, apparently leavinpr it to fne unions to make the levy on their respective members and to hand the proceeds to the federation. "In these proceedings a further objection ! to the validity of the levy is that it was contrarv to the terms of the industrial agreement of April 30, 1920, by which the federation and the unions were bound and this objection I consider well founded under clause 43 (the preference, clause). Wrongful and Inoperative.

" Now. as I have held that the levy of £1 was invalid, it follows that the striking off of the. several plaintiffs from the . register of members was, so far as it proceeded upon the ground that they were in arrear with the levy, wrongful and inoperative. The striking off was admittedly done on May 2, 1922, following upon the resolution of a stop-work meeting held on that date. " The evidence satisfies me that all the plaintiffs except Leddy tendered their resnective subscriptions and lawful levies 1 before the last day of April. It follows from the construction T have placed on the rules that the plaintiffs other than Teddy were at no time 'unfinaneial, and could' not, on the ground of being ' iinfinanciol,' have been deprived of the chance of employment under the preference clans- of the industrial agreement. It al«n follows that, at the time the plaintiffs' names were struck off, none o. hem were in arrears for four months in respect of his dues, and that the strikmgoff was in each case wrongful." Judgment was pronounced for each plaintiff but Leddv, for a wit of manSimns and an injunction, but command of the writ and of the injunction was not to be enforceable in any case unless the plaintiff paid In the union, on or before Tan aw 10. 1923. his subscription and 5C lawful fees in respect of the year Judgment was also given for each plaintiff but Lednv for the damages found hy the jurv, £208, together with costs. In view of the application in each case or a new trial, execution was to bo saved, provided the defendant, on or b-.ore January 10 next, paid into Court the sum of £100. Leddy's case both as to relief and costs, was deferred for further consideration.