A UNION LEVY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17299, 26 April 1918, Page 7

A UNION LEVY

IjEGAL proceedings at K A IT AN G ATA.

ONION RULES AT FAULT.

An apparently small matter involving a claim ol 6s was responsible for a good deal of local interest in tlio Magistrate's Court nt Kaitangata yesterday, the services of two Dunedin lawyers boinir engaged to light tho matter. Tho case was really a test one, the point involved being whether an industrial union con make a levy on its members for a fund for the payment of the legal ©xponsee of claimants in workers' compensation cases, but the proceedings terminated bofore thero was an opportunity for argument by counsel upon this general question. The contending parties wore tho Kaitangata , a ! Miners Industrial Union of Workers (plaintiffs) and David M'lnric-s (defendant). The plaintiffs claimed from tlio defendant 6s, boing a levy duly mado for a period of 12 months from October 21, 1916, to Octobcr, -1917, in accordance with tho registered rules of the union.—Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., was on the bench.—Mr Sourr appeared for tho union and Mr MacGregor," K.C., for M'lnnes.

_ Mr Sourr said the plaintiff union was an industrial union ol workers registered under "The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1908'" and was federated with tho New Zealand Coal Mine Employees' Industrial Association of Workers. In September, 1916, the union sent a delegate to a conference of this federation, at which it was deckled that a levy bo imposed upon the various affiliated unions for tho purpose of providing a fund for the payment of legal expenses arising out of workers' compensation cases. That levy had been struck at ■ the rate of sixpence per member, and was adopted by tho Kaitangata Union. The bulk of the members had appreciated • the fact that tho levy was in the interests of workers in tho union, and had paid it. There were, however, a few recalcitrants who were apparently determined to stand against anything in the nature of authority, and the present proceedings were brought as a test to see whether or -cot the levv could bo legally imposed. Tho Act showed that ono of the matters in oonnection with the formation of a union was the protecting and furi i. interests of its members, and it would be shewn that the present levy was in the irterests of tho workers in the union. Mr Scurr also quoted from the rules to show that it had power to sue for contributions, fines, and other dues when in arrears, and also "to strike a levy to meet financial emergencies." Tho federation rules also contained authority to strike a levy of a limited amount (sixpence a week), and provision was made for it to prooeed against any union for fines, levies, etc., that were overdue.

John William Fenton (treasurer of the union) said that in September, 1916, William Cairns had been sent as a , delegate to a federation conference, and, as a result of that conference, he. had received advice of tho imposition of a levy of sixpence per member per month. Witness also produced tho minutes of the meeting at which the matter had been discussed. In the first of these tho decision of the executive was that * j vy .should bo paid out of the union funds while legal advice was obtained from Mr o'Regan as to the power to levy the union. Later the levy was struck, and witness detailed the manner in which it had' been made payable. When the advice came to hand from Mr OHepan it stated that the union had power to sue for arrears of , tho levy, and it was decided, in October, 1916. to proceed against M'lnncs, a former president of the union. The defendant had been requested in writintr to pay the levy, but it had not been paid. Witness handed m copies of the union rules and also of the federation rules.

In cross-examination by Mr M&tiGregor, witness said he had been treasurer for about two years, and a, member of the union for a much longer period than that. In reply to a further question he produced a rule book containing a pasted slip amending rule 5, which was referred to by coun--83 tj l ' e rule giving power to make levies. Mr MacGregor then asked witness to read tho following letter, written by Mr F. W Rowley (Registrar of Industrial Unions) to the secretary of the Kaitangata Miners' Union on March 27: "In reply to your letter with reference to. the question of levies and contributions. I have to sav that the slip referred to reads as follows' Rule sis hereby deleted, and tho following substituted therefor: Entrance fee shall be 2s 6d for each member, and the contributions /j a £ i ! xlta 6(1 'P° r we ek> and youths Junder 18) 3d per week, payable fortnightly. Oie&ranco cards from other similarly constituted miners' organisations shall entitle the holder to membership.' JNo provision is inserted in the rules empowering the union to make a levy " Mr MacGregor: What do you make of tnat?

Witness: Personalty, I think the rules . give powor to strike a levy. Is this the first you have heard of this amendment —Yes, I did not know tho rules iiad been altered.

Mr MacGregor: The whole power to low was struck out four years ago. The rule was first amended in 1913, reducing the amount of the lovy to 3d, ,and in 1914 it v,-aa further amended, again raising the amount to 6d, but the registrar would not accept this amendment unless the union's clause dealing with tho question of authority to levy was deleted. Mr MaoGregor (to witness): Is it true that a. large majority of your members Lave paid this levy?— Yes. Where does the money go to'—The federation.

TvrJ he £ al oT°,r!s, eet , of tho federation, to ii Il t}us extraordinary result: That all they got from the Kaitangata Union m the way of compensation levy was £8 .6s 6d.-Quite right. There is also an amount of £8 6s 6d for the general

Well, there is a deficiency of some £67 from the Kaitangsta Union. I find it difficult to understand whetro the money has

William Cairns said he was a delegate to ?n ?qff, er T Q u? f , unions held n 1916, at which it was decided to make a levy on all members, one half to be used for the purpose of compensation, nnd other legal cases and tho other half for the general fund.-In reply to Mr Mao h<wl , not been a ware until. that day of any alteration in the

f.,^2 h £++' 01n / Mr ..Ma.cGrogor produced a further letter from Mr Rowley showing the amendment made to rule 5 on April 4 Site's. ~ n ™ Addressing tho court, briefly, Mr MaoGregor said it was quite clear that the plaintiffs could not succeed. He could call evidence to bear out exactly what he had said. It was quite clear that the claim was not made m accordance with tho rules of the union as registered at tho present time Mr Scurr: I must accept the matter 'as it now stands. Apparently, I have been supplied with the rame rules as those forware,od to Mr O'Rognn. Mr MacGroc-or: I fool, bound to sav that the persons behind these proceedings knew or should have known, that the rules had teen amended If tbey did not know, they stand convicted of gross ignorance of their W t,On '-u nd r if thev did know & urjar I- »»-

WRf W< T^ ip f !<l , ho would P' vo them the benefit of the doubt. Judgment would be fee ffil /"J? sol Tutor's (il L ' arKl witnesses' expenses (8s).