Court Hears Watersider’s Claim Against Port Union.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18937, 6 December 1929, Page 9

Court Hears Watersider’s Claim Against Port Union.

ALLEGES VICTIMISATION, AND SEEKS ORDER THAT WILL GRANT MEMBERSHIP.

COUNSEL, in the Supreme Court to-day, addressed the Court in a claim by Edward Gillard against the Lyttelton Waterside Workers’ Unioil for £SO damages. Gillard’s claim was based on the allegation that the union’s Committee of Management had wrongfully declined to admit him to membership of the union, had victimised him, and had deprived him of work. In addition to his claim for damages, he asked for a writ of mandamus ordering the committee to admit him to membership of the union.

Mr M. J. Gresson, for the union, said that it had not been shown that Gillard had a statutory right to become a unionist. Gillard’s counsel had referred to only sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act. Neither of those sections suggested that the law conferred a right on anybody to become a unionist. Common law did not apply, as nobody ever had a right to become a member of a trades union under common law. ,

Mr Justice Adams: This is not a trades union, but a union for the sole purpose of the Arbitration Court. Mr Upham, for Gillard, said that he did not contend that, by applying for membership and tendering the fee, Gillard became a member of the union, but he became a member when the committee passed him and put him on the list as being eligible. The committee then proceeded to do something that was a breach of the rules. Judgment was reserved.