UNION OFFICIAL’S DISMISSAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19999, 15 July 1920, Page 7

UNION OFFICIAL’S DISMISSAL.

AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE. MAGISTERIAL DECISION. Reserved judgment was given bv Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.. at iho llagistrato’s Court to-day in tbo action brought by Francis Alfred Moody (Mr Twyncham) against the Christchurch branch of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, Joiners’ Machinists and Shipwrights’ Industrial Union of Workers, for whom Mr Cuningham appeared. Tho plaintiff "claimed £l9 10s. being one month’s wages in lieu of notice. Tho plaintiff was elected iis organiser for the affiliated unions in the bmtorhury industrial district and also as l secretary of the defendant union—a | branch union. “In addition to branch | unions,” said the Magistrate ; n re- 1 viewing tho facts of tho case, ” there is I a National Council and also District! Councils. The' National Council is composed of delegates from afliliaied unions of the industrial districts throughout the Dominion. The District Councils arc made up of delegates from branch unions situate in the districts. Tho National Council has jurisdiction over all tho districts throughout the Dominion The Distinct Councils exercise jurisdiction over the branch unions of thoii respective districts, whilst tho branch unions are controlled by their respective) members. These respective jurisdictions only relate to the workers in joinery and allied trades. If, however, a majority of affiliated unions in any industrial district deciao by resolution not to elect a District ■Council the functions of the District Council are cxerciseable by the executive of tho largest affiliated union in that district. The affiliated unions m the- district, mace up of North and Bontli Canterbury, and known as tne Canterbury Industrial District, by resolution decided not to elect a District Council. The defendant union is the largest affiliate! union in that district, and ris branch executive in the manner preseyibod by the .regulati ’is of tho defendant union elected i u plaintiif as trie district organiser. The.-; elections arc carried out annually, ami are to be by postal ballot of members of affiliated unions in the industrial district. The last undisputed efiction of plaintiff as district organiser took place on February fit), 1019, when plaintiff was declared duly eloctca by the roturuing officer. Tho plaintiff was again declared elected as district organiser in tho month of December, 1919. This election is disputed. Tho branch executive accepted plaintiff asdistrici organiser under this election. In January, 1920, the plaintiff applied to the defendant union for three months’ leave of absence. The branch executive opposed the granting of this leave-—the defendant union, howovei, granted it. The defendant union must therefore be held to have ratified plaintiff’s election. The plaintiff’s salary was paid by levy on all the members of the affiliated unions, and these levies are controlled and paid out by the defendant union and its branch executive. Ihu branch executive of the defendant union has to act in a dual capacity. It has to control the domestic affairs of the defendant union, and has to control the activities of tho district organiser. Iho plaintiff, in defiance of the branch executive, though with the authority of tbo members of the defendant union, took three months’ leave. Subsequently the plaintiff-s election as district organiser in December. 1919, was declared void by tho branch' executive. No express power has been conferred on this oranch executive giving them anv control over elections, which are to be taken under tho direction of a returning officer. Tho plaintiff returned on bo expiration of Ins leave, but was reKised by the branch executive and the defendant union admission to the defendant union’s office or access to Us books. Tho joint action of these two bodies prevented the plaintiff from perJ arming iho duties of his office. Clearly the plaint/fr, in taking leave of absence Without the consent of the branch executive, committed a breach of duty, iho branch executive, and not tho de-renc-ant _ union, alone has control over tbo district organiser. The remedy for that breach of dutv. however, lav neither with the branch executive no’r with the defendant union, but bv vote of a special meeting of the majority of affilutea unions in the Canterbury'district. * thm) 0 rV 0t V Vafl ® ver t£ *en. S V IG ! ? ranGh executive or the del ■ endanfc unmn have jurisdiction to declare plaintiff’s election void? I think not Not only has the returning officer conclusive control over elections hut the branch executive and the clefendant union both recognised the election and cannot now ho heard to disr lf - yon sequence is that Fq ootui f organiser, and s entitled to exorcise the duties am! to receive the emoluments of district organiser. The plaintiff was prevented roin exercising l us duties by the docnaant union ami its branch exccu-tn-o, wmen are hnhlo to him for his salary. _ The plaintiff’s claim i s for wagos in lieu of notice. The real basis of _ Ins chum against the defendant union is for bis salary as district orpamper. Judgment Mill bo reeonWl <; r t’* lo , plaintiff for -iho sum of lus, being one month's salary The defendant union ivill be ordered to nav the costs-” 1 ' , Cuninpham said that there had iieeu an error in calculating tb« plain- / VoV, va j';-' Thc nmo «nt should ho tib> Us id. The. Mngistrntft varied his judgment accordingly, entering a verdict for the plaintiff for £lB 13s 4d.