CONFLICT IN COUNCIL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20385, 14 October 1929, Page 13

CONFLICT IN COUNCIL.

RAILWAYMEN'S DISPUTE

SUPREME COURT ACTION

Tho question whether four members of tho executive council of the Now Zealand Locomotivo Engineers, FireMen and Cleaners' Association aro eligible to continue in office was argued bofore tho Chief Justico in tho Supreme Court in Wellington last week. The plaintiffs aro Robert Carroll, of Auckland, Archibald W. Mack, of Taihape; John James Pennell, of Wellington; and William Ptillar, of Dunedin, all of whom are cnginedrivers. Tho defendants arc tho New Zealand Locomotive Engineers, Firemen and Cleaners' Association, and Frederick J. Lewin, of I'almerston North, cnginodrivcr; and William McArley, of Wellington, secretary.

In opening tho caso for the plaintiffs, Mr. 11.I 1 . B. Cooke stated tliat his application was to have made permanent an interim injunction granted by the Chief Justice restraining Frederick J. Lewin, president of the association, and William McArley, general secretary, from proceeding with calling for nominations for an election to fill the places of the plaintiffs on the executive council. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that they had been to the council as the result of a ballot conducted in accordance with the rules of the association in March last. It was alleged that at a meeting of tho council held in Wellington in May Lewin wrongfully refused to permit Carroll to act as ;i member of the council. Mack, Ponnell, and Pullar withdrew from tho meeting, and since then none of them had received any notice of any meeting, or had been requested to attend any meetings of the council. On July 4, McArley, purporting to act under the authority of Lewin, advised the branch secretaries that nominations were being called for an election to fill tho places of plaintiffs on the council.

In tho cases of Pullar, Mack and rennell, it was stated, extraordinary vacancies had occurred by reason of their failure to attend two consecutive meetings of tho council. So far as Carroll was concerned tho notice set out that he was ineligible to act on tho council. Carroll, it was claimed, had been duly elected in accordance with tho rules, and had been declared elected by the returning officer. It was also contended that nono of tho other three plaintiffs had received notice of meetings of the council, and that all four of them were still entitled to hold office.

The statement of defence for Lewin denied that he had acted wrongfully in refusing to allow Carroll to sit, on the council, and it was submitted that since Carroll was ineligible to hold office owing lo failing eyesight, it was his (Lewin's) duty to prevent Carroll from sitting on flio council. The other three plaintiffs, it was alleged, had forfeited their seats owing to being absent from two consecutive meetings. The defence for McArley was a conlent ion that Mack, Pennejl and Pullar were aware of the council meetings after the one from whiclQ they withdrew, and that they had absented themselves without the consent of tho president. The statement of defence mentioned an award made hy Mr. E. Page, S.M., in March, 1927, wlien it, was decided that Carroll, on account of failing vision, was not eligible tn hold office on the executive council, in accordance with rule 77. Tll December, 1927. the grand council confirmed the interpretation of this rule. The Chief .Justice reserved his decision.