INJUNCTION REFUSED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19748, 26 March 1926, Page 10

INJUNCTION REFUSED.

A.S.R.S. BALLOT. NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY. COUNCIL’S ACTION LEGAL. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 25. In the course of his judgment which -dismissed the application for an injunction to restrain the A.S.R.S. from taking a ballot to decide whether nominations for the position of general secretary should he limited to a special class of its members, Mr Justice Ostler said: “The rules of the union in their present form in my opinion provide that any ‘person’ not necessarily I a member so long as he is competent to perform all the duties assigned to him by the executive council and by the rules, shall be eligible for the office of general secretary. This, in my opinion, is made clear by the wording of Rule 10 in Section (bj— first and last paragraphs—-where the word ‘person’ is used in contradistinction to the word ‘member.’ That being so, it would, in my opinion, be contrary to the rules for the executive council to limit nominations for the position, either to permanent members only or to financial members only, or even to members only With the rules in their present form, if the executive council attempted to limit the nominations in any such way arid refused to accept the nomination of any member because he dill not belong to a specified class, this court would be justified in restraining the executive council from so doing by an injunction, for in that case thev would be acting ultra vires of the rules of the union. It is suggested on behalf of defendants that, as the executive council must judge of the competence of the persons nominated, it has the power or limiting the nominations to certain specified classes of members. In my opinion, however, that is not the meaning of the rule. The rule means that any person who is in fact competent, etc., is eligible under the present rules. The executive council has no power in my opinion to decide priori that only members of a certain specified class are competent. “But the Executive Council has not so far attempted to limit nominations tor the position of general secretary to any specified class of members. All that it has done so far is to take steps to conduct a ballot of all members of the union inquiring whether nominations should be limited to a certain specified class. It may or may not conduct an election in conformity with the result of the ballot. After taking a ballot it may have taken legal opinion, and upon that opinion have decided to amend the rules before conducting an election of a new secretaiy. Therefore, in my opinion, the action is premature., The mere taking of a ballot does not infringe any right , which the plaintiff has by virtue of the rules, unless it be the right to ask the court to restrain the taking oi a ballot because such an action is in itself contrary to the rules. This is claimed as a second ground for an injunction. In my opinion, however, the taking of a ballot is not contrary to the present rules. On the contrary, the rules imply that this is an appropriate method of taking the opinion of the members upon important questions of management of the affairs of the union. Rule 9, section (b), provides as follows: —‘The decision of the Executive Council shall be binding on members until, and unless, reversed by the biennial general meeting. No questions shall be submitted to members of the branches to be voted on a second time within 12 months.’ The latter part of the foregoing paragraph implies that there is power to submit a question to the members of the branches for their decision, and such a question can best be decided by a ballot. Therefore, I think the rules impliedly give the Executive Council power to conduct a ballot, and there is no ground for the court to interfere.”