RIGHTS OF UNIONISTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15101, 25 March 1911, Page 9

RIGHTS OF UNIONISTS

UXION SUCCESSFULLY SUED,

(Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 24. Judgment was given by his Honor Mr Justice Cooper to-day in the Action brought by James Flowers, a coloured labourer, against, the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Industrial Union of Workers. Briefly stated, plaintiff said that the union had unlawfully excluded lsi.u fr:m membership, and he asked the court for (1) the issue of a mandamus commanding the union to recognise him rs' a member; and (2) £175 damages. Plaintiff had become a. member of the union in 1908, and complained that in, April, 1910 (while still a member of the union), the union, through its ofllcers notified the employeis ol wharf labour on the Wellington wharf that he had cessed to bo a member, and had become ineligible to employment exoept in breach of an award under which preference to unionists was given. The defence was that plaintiff had failed to pay his contributions, and had ceased to be a member at the time the noticcs were given. It was acknowledged that Flowers first becaino a. member of the union in 19C6. Preference to members of the union had not been granted by the Arbitration Couit between that time and 24th March, 1908. When preference was granted Flowers, by virtue of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, ceased to be a member, his subscriptions being at cne time 18 months in anears. After preference was granted, probably on bth May, plaintiff called at the offices of the 'union and paid the sum of 3s 6d—2-s 6d far entrance feo and Is for a month's contributions. No receipt was then given, but from that time, and for ready a year afterwards, he was recognised as a member of the union. There wes a conflict of evidence as to what took placo whin this payment was made, but his Honor said that probably the mora accurate version of tho two given was that he threw the 3s 6d on the table and demanded lo join as a new member, and that Mr D. M'Laren (then eccretiry of the union, and now advisoiy secretary) 6a;id : —" You. cannot join as a new member, Mv Flower:-. You must pay up your back aareais." Analysing the facts, his Honor said the position of the plaintiff and the union immediately befoiethis occurrence was this : The plaintiff had ceased to be a. member of the union some time before. This was the effeet of the statute. He was treated as a non-unionist when the award came into operation. Th:s is clearly shown by Mr M'Laren'saccount of what took place between him (M'Laren) and the foreman of the Blackball Coal Company. Befwo the plaintiff could be safely employed under the awa:d it bacaine necessary for him to icjoin the union, and he attended at tho office of the union for that purpose. He owed money to tho union, limited, probably, to the sum of 12s, but as he was no longer a member of the union a fresh cntranco fee was necessary. It is clear, therefoie, that he tendered the 2s 6d and Is as enhance fee and a months' subscription as a new member. The money was received by the union officials, and according to Mr M'Laren, treated as a part payment-of the debt due by the plaintiff to the union, but the plaintiti did not acquiesce in this, and the union received and retained the money. "It is in my opinion. 'UimcccGsary to determine the interesting question argued by counsel whether or not a person who has been a member of a workVic' union, but win has ceaszd to be &in>3mber in consequenco of being 12 mcnths in anear with his payments, can, under the preference clause settled oy the Arbitiation Court, insist on becoming a new member without first paying up his 12 months' airears. For tno question to be determined here is whether or not the payment made by tho plaintiff and received by tho union could under the circumstances be legally appropriated by the ■union to the arreais due by the plaintiti. lam of opinion that it could not. ha that time ho was treated as a, member of the union. His name wts returned a member of tho union for the year 1909. and he was allowed under the rules of tho union a remission of five months' dues owing to his absence for that period from work. This was undisputed. He alio paid in cash to the union subsequent In the payment made on or about Bth May, 1900, at least six separate payments of Is. In his Honor's opinion tneso payments were made by him in respect of contributions accruing since ho was readmitted to tho union, ar.d could not be properly appropriated by the union for any other purpcie. His Iloncr held that plaintiff was therefore an effective member of the union on 20th April, 1803, and that the union, in notifying the employeis that plaintiff was a- non-unionist, naa acted on a mistaken view of plaintiff's legal position. Upon the facts stated by his Honor he had come to the conclusion that plaintiff had established n cause of action against tho union. Plaintiff was still a member of tho union, and he was entitled to the order for the issue of the mandamus asked for. In his Honor's opinion he was also entitled to damages. Plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages, but to a reasonable sum by way of compensation. Taking tho whole circumstances into consideration, a reasonable amount to award by way cf damages was the sum oi £50. Judgment was therefore given fcr plaintiff for £50 damages, an onkr fc.T tho issue (if necessary) of a writ of mandamus, and judgment for costs on the lowest scale. After reading the judgment, his Honor s?.id it would not be.ncccffiary to grant the injunction, as the union had already agreed to enrol Flowers as a member if the court found ho was entitled to be one at the hearing. Mr A. W. Blair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr P. J. G'Regan for the defendant union.