UNION DUES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 699, 8 May 1916, Page 8

UNION DUES.

: AND A RESIGNATION RULE. DEIVEES' UNION CLAIMS: Another case affecting the rights of I trades unions over members was heard by Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., this morn|ing. The Canterbury Motor Car and I Horse Drivers ami Livery Stable Emiployees' Industrial Union of Workers j made claims against six drivers at Lyttelton, viz., Bov Bennett (£2 18/-), | William Shilling (£1 11/-), .lobn Whales j (£2 2/-), Frederick Moir (£3 I/-), Richjard Madden (£3 14/-), and Albert Hew- ; stone (£2 11/-), for membership dues j alleged to be owing. The case against Bennett was taken as a test case. Mr A. T. Donnelly appeared for the union i and Mr O. T. J. Alpers for defendant. Hiram Hunter, secretary to the plaini tiff union, stated that Bennett had sign- ! Ed a declaration of membership of the I union in 1910, and had been a member ! ever since* The amount due by him to . the union to March 29 was £2 18/-. Ben- ! nett had never indicated any desirevto ' resign from the union. Cross-examined by Mr Alpers: When \ Bennett joined the union the union was called the Canterbury Drivers' Indusi trial Fnion of Workers, which was rej gistered in 1909. In 1912 an extension jof the name was applied for to cover I the new class of drivers which had come j into existence by the increase of motor traffic, and also to cover livery stable ! employees. The rules were then amend- ' ed and a change was made in that re- : garding the purging of the rolls was altered, the word "must" being i amended to "may." The union hail j not purged its roil under that rule for ' four years. In 1914 the union obtained I a new award for drivers at Lytteltoil. I Defendant had never tried to resign. Mr Alpers read the union's resignation rule, which provided only that a I member may withdraw when he leaves j the industry. | Witness replied that the rule was i based on the preference clause in tho | award, which provided that members ! should remain in the union while working in the industry. | Mr Alpers pointed out that the Court ' of Appeal had ruled that the Arbitra- ! tion Court could not make unionism | compulsory, but could give preference to unionists. Counsel also pointed out that the union had sued for four years' dues, but the most it could legally get was 13/-, for the union had not purged its roll annually. He submitted that the union could not even get 13/-, because the Act provided for resignation from membership on the giving of due notice and on the member resigning I making himself financial. The union's j resignation rule did not comply with the Act, and so it was bad. HJ? therefore submitted that members could i withdraw whenever they liked. ! Defendant Bennett stated that he became a member of the union in 1910, but he ceased to attend meetings of the union because he found uon-uuionists working alongside, and the secretary of the union never went near. Hewstonowanted to resign, but was told that he could not unless he left the industry. Witness and the others then thought it would be a waste of time to send in resignations. After two years the strike came, and the Drivers' Union called them out. They refused to strike. They did not join the new union, but ignored the old one. '

Iu reply to Mr Donnelly, defendant 'said that he received notices of meetlings of the union, but he did not attend 'to them. | Mr Donnelly, in addressing the Court, I said that the point raised by Mr Alpers, jas to the purging of the roll was new | to him, and he would like time to conisider it, although he saw, on the faeo 'of it, no answer to it. On the question J of the resignation rule, counsel contended that when the men signed the dejclaration of membership they contractJed to abide by the rules and the alterations thereto. The union's rule was in | conformity with the Arbitration Court's award. Even if it were held that the I rule were invalid, that would only (throw them back into the position of Ithere being a valid rule in accordance* I with the statute inserted in the rulo book. The defendant couM not be given any greater legal right than the statute gave him. The man stood by the ! statute, and must be dealt with on that j basis. He must pay up his dues and Igive his notice. Defendant had not attended any of the union's meetings or liaised any question about the rules, or made anv attempt to resign. The Magistrate said that there was no merit on the part of defendant as regarded his relations wth the union. The ease was quite different from that ! which had previously come before the Court, in which the' man had tried to <ret out of the union, but could not. The present defendant, however, had made no effort to leave the union. Dis Worship added that he was prepared to give .Mr Donnelly time to consider the point as io purging the rolls, if Mr Donnellv desired. But he was also prepared to <*ive judgment for dues for one year and leave the other side to appeal if it so desired.

|" Mr Alpers said he was instructed l>y all his clients, except to submit Ito judgment for Hi/ —a rear'a dues, Ijilus' :;/- fine for non-payment. Mr Donnelly agreed to accept this, 'and judgment was given accordingly. In a little subsequent discussion it was >tated that the union's rules wero being amended. After hearing the case of Skilling, who had been a member of the union, committee until the time of the strike, Mr Bishop held that defendant had no defence. Judgment was given in thin case for the union for IS/-- Defendant had paid his dues up to the time of the strike.