SECOND EDITION. INTERESTING TO UNIONISTS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13334, 24 March 1911, Page 7

SECOND EDITION. INTERESTING TO UNIONISTS.

UNION AND DEFAULTING MEMBERS Union Pays £SO Damages. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 24. Judgment was given by Mr Justice Cooper to-day in the action brought by Tames Flowers against the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Union. Plaintiffs grievance was that the Union had unlawfully excluded him from membership, and he asked the Court for (1) thu issue of a mandamus commanding the defendant Union to recognise him as a member; and (2) £125 damages. Plaintiff stated that while a member of the Union, llic latter, through its officers, notilied the employers of wharf labour on the wharf that ho had ceased to he a member, and had become ineligible for employment on the wharf, except in breach of the preference clause of the Union's award. The defence of the Union was that Flowers was iu arrears with his subscriptions to the extent of £1 12s 6d. A summons was actually issued for this amount, but the case was withdrawn, counsel having advised the Union that the defaulting, member bad to be struck off the books in accordance with the statute when twelve mouths in arrears. The Union accordingly offered to rc-admit Flowers on payment of 12s arrears.

Plaintiff denied being in arrears at all, and fruitlessly sought from the Union a detailed statement of how his arrears had been made up. He was a member of the Union in 1906 before preference "'as granted, but dropped out, ami was iu default with payment of subscriptions in 1908, when preference was granted. He called at the office of the Union, and tendered 3e (id, and said he wished to be placed on the books. It was proved that the Union, in its returns to the Labour Department in 1809, had included him as a member, but nevertheless the defence was set up that the 3s 6d referred to was only part payment in liquidation of arrears. After notice to the employers, Flowers tendered 5s Gd to the Union (without prejudice of his right that he was still a, member) for re-admission, and three months’ contributions, but it was refused. The Court held that all the circumstances went to show that the Union had regarded him as a member, and had issued notice to the employers in a mistaken idea of the legal position. Flowers was, the Court held, still a member. The Union was ordered to enrol him as a member, and pay £SO damages for loss of employment suffered by plaintiff.