RULES FAULTY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17568, 19 June 1925, Page 7

RULES FAULTY.

CARPENTER’S UNION AND PREFERENCE. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. On the ground that the rules cf the union are not framed fit conformity ivith the requirements of the preference clause of the award, the Arbitration Lourt has refused an application bv the Canterbury Carpenters and Joiners’ Industrial Union of Workers to have the Northern, Taranaki, Wellington. Nelson. Canterbury and Otago and Southland Industrial Districts Carpenters and Joiners’ Award amended bv granting the union equal preference with the other unions covered by the award. ( The application was the outcome of a long-standing dispute between the 1 Canterbury Union and the Christchurch branch of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. The ; application was opposed by Mr E. C. Sutcliffe on behalf cf the Amalgamated Society. The Court in its judgment states:— The application is made in pursuance of a reservation made in clause 10 (e) of the award. When the award was urub'T consideration, the rules of the applicant union did not conform to the conditions under which the Court grants preference, and preference was accordingly refused for the time being. . but power was reserved to extend to the union the benefits cf the preference clause on its rules being amended to comply with the Court’s requirements. ■ The rules have now been amended in certain particulars, and the Court has j considered the effect of the amendi merits. The application for amendment lof the award was opposed by the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners.. “In our opinion,” the judgment continues, “the amended rules are not framed in conformity with the requirements of the preference clause of the j award. The clause provides that the rules of a union entitled to preference must permit a worker to remain a member of the union on payment of contributions not exceeding Is per week. The rules of the applicant union provide for a weekly subscription of 3d and, if thought necessary, a weekly levy of 9d, but other clauses of the rules make provision for fines ranging from 6d to £2. The portions of the rules relating to subscriptions and levies are unobjectionable, for the maximum liability thereunder does not exceed the shilling per week permitted by the preference clause of the award, but the fines, which after a fortnight are to be treated as arrears of contributions, may cause the total liability of a member to be increased bs3'ond the permitted maximum. The union representative agreed that levies and fines were not at all likely to be imposed on members, but the point is that they are provided for in the rules, and that accordingly a member may become liable for their payment; and, iof course, it necessarily follows that as the name of a defaulting member must be struck off the roll of membership if he is twelve months in arrear with his dues, that member has not the right to continue a member upon payment of a maximum contribution of Is per week, as required by the preference clause of the award. “The rules also provide for certain benefit schemes. Benefit schemes have been held by the Supreme Court to be outside the objects of a union registered under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If the granting of preference to a union is opposed, the Court must consider whether its rules j comply with the law, and in view of the j ruling of the Supreme Court, we cannot ! use preference as a lever for urging men to join a union that requires them to contribute to schemes that, though beneficial and desirable in themselves, are. outside the legiti- . mate objects of an industrial union, j These schemes must cost something ! to operate, and some part of the members’ contributions must be devoted to support them; so that, even though the total liability of a member to the union may not now exceed Is per week, it might well be considerably less than that sum if the union confined itself to purely industrial matters. “The application must be refused. The applicant union may apply again, on amending ite rules by deleting all provisions that would render a member liable o a total cumulative par. ment of more than Is per week, and on deleting all provisions relating to benefit schemes. These schemes may be made the object of a voluntary society of workers, but they cannot be made the subject of compulsory contributions to a union to which preference has been accorded.