WATERSIDE WORKERS

Otago Witness, Issue 3590, 2 January 1923, Page 66

WATERSIDE WORKERS

LEVY INVALID. V ELLINGTON, December 22. Judgment was given by Mr Justice Hos« *f ln i= ™?’n ay *he actions brought against the Wellington Waterside Workers’ Union as a result of the union striking a levy cf LI per year upon its members. The court found that the levy was invalid, and that it became enforceable at no tone, inasmuch as it was not made in accordance with the union rules. The striking off of the plaintiffs’ names as f —°- toe union was declared wroig,J n ,- the ®°««e of his judgment Mr Justice Hosking said: After tracing the further history of the matter now I have no doubt that Lie £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 In contempt of these careful provisions—common in substance with the regulations by which most, if not, all, of the other societies, whether corporate or incorporate, govern themselves so that business shall not be sprung upon meetings or transacted surreptitiously— n° sufficient notice was given of the meeting by which, it is said, the levy was struck.” An advertisement intimating that the meeting was to be called gave less than 24 hours’ notice and did not disclose that such a thing as a levy was to be proposed. lie regarded the mission as indicating that the levy which was to be proposed was fatal to the validity of the meeting as a sjjecial meeting and competence to make the levy. ihe notice of business to be transited was to enable the member to determine in his own interest whether he would attend or stay away. It was urged that Gould and others, by attending the meet ing, waived any objection to its validity. That might be a sound point if tb< meeting had been called for specific purposes 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 “executive’s recommendation and general. ’ He could 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 in due course be transacted by a special meeting. It was also said that the resolution imposing the levy was confirmed, by subsequent meetings, but all that these subsequent meetings really indicated was that a majority of the members was willing to abide by the levy, whether it was valid or not and refused to allow it to be questioned. His Honor continued: “The minutes of the conference proceedings on the subject of a 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 other purposes. I do not, however, think it necessary for the purposes of this case to determine the precise object or objects of the fund or whether it is illegal. I think, however, that the levy was ultra vires at the time it was made. At the hearing this was really not denied. The resolution of the conference was skilfully worded, and rather'avoids the language of a direct imposition, apparently leaving it to the unions to make a levy on their respective members and hand the proceeds to the federation. If the federation had the power to require money from the unions no doubt itwould have been intra vires. The unions, in turn, made a levy on their members in order to comply with the requisition. As, however, the federation did not possess this power in 1920 a levy by any union on its members could only be justified if it came within the purposes of the union. Whether it was so or not depends upon whether those purposes authorised the raising of funds which might be used in aid of strikes. Whether it was ultra vires of the union or not was not much argued, and I think it is unnecessary to decide that question in these proceedings. A further objection to the validity of the levy is that it was contrary 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) In view of the application of each case for a new trial execution is to be stayed provided that the defendant on or before January next pays into court the sum of £IOO. Leddy’s case, both as to relief and, costs, is deferred for further consideration.”