RIVAL UNIONS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19846, 21 May 1927, Page 7

RIVAL UNIONS

SEAMEN’S DISPUTE QUESTION OF AN AGREEMENT. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 20. “On the evidence it would be impossible to fix the union with the responsibility for the attitude taken up by some of the members of the crew, apparently against the policy of the union as a corporate body. Similarly, there was not sufficient evidence to fix Walsh with the liability. There is no evidence of malice on the part of Newfield against plaintiff, and the most that can be said against him is that he was a zealous officer on behalf of his own organisation and only desired to enrol plaintiff as a member of his own union.” So said Mr Salmon, S.M., to-day, in giving judgment in the recent seamen’s case, which was for defendant. There was no doubt, Mr Salmon said, that feeling ran high among some members of the industrial union towards the trade union and its members, though it was doubtful whether any of the members thoroughly understood the position. Mr Salmon said that the Court was asked to determine incidentally which of the two unions was entitled to the agreement made with the slppowners on June 22, 1926, as to its own agreement. The answer was that neither of the unions, as a union, was entitled to regard the agreement as its own particular and exclusive property. The agreement by virtue of the Statute would act for tho benefit of those workers for whom it was made. The right to the benefits of an agreement was the right of property, and it followed that the right of property was vested in the existing members at the time the agreement was entered into.