The Star. TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1900. A TRADES UNION CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6795, 15 May 1900, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1900. A TRADES UNION CASE.

■. A. case of some, interest to persons affected by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was heard by the Christchurch Stipendiary Magistrate yesterday. It arose out of a claim made by .tho Christchurchi Operative Bootmakers" Society against; , one „ of,, „_| ts „ mambjCi's^. for , con.•tributions due to ithe Society. Previous to ;-.tlte last award given by the Arbitration .Court,., the defendant had been; granted a clearance fri>m*.he Society on his being promoted to the position' of foremaiv Under the awatd /in. "qiiestj oil, however,- the clearance wa,s , cancelled, and at this point the difference between the plaintiffs and the defendant began. ■ The former maintained that; under the award the defendant, wais liable for all back contributions to the Society .from the day on which the clearance was granted until that on which it was' amvulled. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that there was no clause in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act winch permitted Unions to proceed, against defaulting members, and, ntorcover, that according to the Trades Unions Act of 1878, the orilf Act which had any bearing upon, .the point, Unions were practically forbidden to take proceedings in a. Court of Law for subscriptions due: by members. The defendant's .opinion, Jor rather- that of his solicitor, seems to have been shared by the presiding Magistrate, who ascribed the difficulty <to the failure of Parliament to. repeal the Trades Unions Act of 1878. But further investigation revealed tk? f act-that,. after all, among the clauses of the Arbitration. Act was one which exactly fitted the case, and the defendant paid 'his outstanding subscriptions, and the matter ended. At first sight it appears very much as if the Magis trate was put to a great deal of unnecessary troxible simply because the. persons directly interested in the case were ignorant of the provisions of the Act, but, on reflection, we are inclined to think that if the case has been the means of drawing attention to the legal standing of Unions with regard to their msnbers, Mr Beetham's time has not been wasted.