LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 262, 29 July 1908, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT. SEQUEL TO PEA-GUESSING COMPETITION. DOYLE v. FURNITURE TRADE UNION. QUESTION OP DIGNITY. Tlio, caso of James Doyle v. tho United Furniture Trade Industrial Union of Workers was heard before his Honour tho Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday. Mr. N.»avo appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. Hindmarsh-for tlio defendants. Tho facts in this case woro as follow :—Plaintiff had beon for a considerable tinio a member of the defendants' Union. At a meeting of members plaintiff referred to a roport concerning Labour Day picnic. The president of tho Union, Who was iii tlio chair, ruled him out of ordor, and somo dispute arose as to tho ruling. The Union resolved that plaintiff bo expelled from membership. Subsequently, plaintiff was notified to that effect; Tho award in the trade in question provides for- preference to unionists, and plaintiff- said that tho expulsion from tho TJiiion deprived him of tho benefits of that clauso, Plaintiff claimed that tho .expulsion was invalid upon tho ground that ho had no opportunity of being heard-in justification of his conduct, and that tho motion for expulsion was carried contrary to the rules of tho Union, and -was therefore ineffective. Plaintiff claimed: (1) A declaration that so long as ho shall conform to-tho ruft>s of the Union, which ho hereby offers to do, lie is entitled to participato in tho rights, privileges, and benefits of membership of tho Union, and that tlio pretended expulsion was invalid; (2) That tho Union might bo restrained by injunction from excluding him from membership; and (3) That tho Union might bo ordered to pay to him £100 as damages for tho alleged wrongful expulsion. Tho dcfcuco to tlio action was a denial of the matters alleged, and an- affirmative defence that tho conduct of jjlaintiff at the meeting- justified his expulsion; also that plaintiif had resigned prior to tlio passing of tho resolution in question, and, therefore, could not bo expelled becauso ho had then ccasfkl to bo a member.

, Mr. Ncave, in opening the caso for the plaintiff, submitted that his oliont ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard in justification of his attitude. His Honour: It .would surely bo an easy matter to settlo tho dispute. - Mr. Hindmarsh: Tho Union can't keep plaintiff out. According to the award, it must admit to membership any worker in the trado. All he has to do is to sign an application form and rejoin. It is iinderstood :that ho is not willing to do that. Mr. Ncave: Plaintiff that ho has been placed under great indignity. His Honour:, The members 'of' tho Union may have thought the same thing/'Why can't botli sides agree to waive all matters betwoen thom? Plaintiff ought to apologise for disputing the ruling of tho chairman. Whether-a cnairnian is'in the right or in tho wrong, bnsinoss cannot bo transacted unless .his rulings aro obeyed, .evon if for a timo ho is a little Tsar. It is a very, easy thing for ii member to give notice to have tho matter reconsidered at the next /meeting, when everybody will bo calm. Plaintiff is entitled to go back on payment of ss. As ho has not ,hnd to pay dues in tho meantime, ho has really saved money over tho dispute. If. a dispute like' this' happened, say, in Parliament, it would bo settled'within twenty-four hours. Why can't this matter bo settled amicably? The Union would lose their preference if they, refused to take him back. They say that hi can come back; but ho must go in through the door, not through tho window. . Mr. Neave: I suggest that a formal declaration bo made, ~

Mr. Hindmarsh: No. I can't agroo to that. Plaintiff has treated tho Union very badly. His Honour: Then the hearing must proc'eed. The. legal questions are:—Did tho Union exceed its jurisdiction by passing tho resolution of. expulsion ? ' Did' plaintiff acquiesco in it by leaving the room aiid saying that lie.would have nothing more'to do with, tho Union? ' .

Mr. Neavo, continuing, said, that if tho plaintiff had been guilty of any offence lie ought to liavo been notified of tho intention of the Union.to pass tho resolution of expulsion. 1 '. His Honour: To question the ruling of tho chairman is an offence.'.. The proper course for tho chairman to ,have adopted, would have been to have adjourned the meeting for ten minutes for a "smoko." "

Mr. Neave called Herbert Swindell,-a member .of the Management. Gommitteo of the Union. _ Witness stated that at tho meeting on November. C a. letter was received from 'plaintiff; Tho chairman (Mr. Moriarty) asked for'a motion. .Plaintiff moved that ho be heard. Tlje.chairman said: "You will not-got a seconder." Mr. Adam's-"seconded tho motion which was, however, ruled out. of order.,' .Plaintiff said that the pea-guessing competition 'at' tho'picnic. Hva's the biggest' swindle that had ever been committed'on a racecourse, and then left, the' room. Subsequently Mr. -Allen moyod that .plaintiff ,- bo expelled from tho Union'; and an amendment was proposed in_ favour of plaintiff being heard. Tho motion ! was carried/ .

i Mr. Hindmarsh, on behalf of the Union, said that ho could, if necessary, call a ber of witnesses to provo what took placo at tho meetings of tho Union! Daniel Moriarty, president ,of tho Union, deposed that in consequenco of . certain ; remarks mado by plaintiff at a former meeting, when ho said ho was resigning, tho Union called upon him to apologise. His reply, was not received until after tho. inward, correspondence had been dealt with at tho next meeting, and ho ruled plaintiff's motion referring to tho_ letter out of order as it was not now tjusiness because the matter had been dealt with earlier iii tho evening. ' When a seconder was found for'the motion, plaintiff obsorved: "Thank God, there is 0110 mail in the room."' Plaintiff then left tho room, but before so doing lie remarked: "I am only too willing to get " rid of you. You aro a dirty rotten lot." ' Witness was sorry that plaintiff had not. seen fit. to withdraw tho statements which he had made. None of tho members had any ill-feeling towards him. Honour, in giving judgment, said ho was satisfied that what took place at tho meeting on October, v 23 was that plaintiff withdrow from membership, arid that tho Union accepted'6s.-.fr6m'him in lieu of notice. Tho Union ought not to havo passed a resolution of expulsion at the meeting on November 6 seeing that plaintiff was no longer a member. Plaintiff , 110 doubt {olt that tho of! the. resolution was a reflection u'pon- him, and that - was tho reason- why ho had instituted the proceedings. As the Union, had given plaintiff some encouragement to seek relief ho would not allow' costs to: thc'Union'bn the Supremo/Court scale, but as on an action in tho Magistrate's Court, viz., 3 guineas. "And let mo say," observed his Honour subsequently,- "by : wa^ -of extra-judicial utterance, because plaintiff seems to have boon an old member jo_f the Union, that I liop'o, after this discussion ill'the Supremo Court* ho will have tho good sense to apply for readmission to membership, for it may be perhaps that 110 will ..bo elected to tho offlco of president next' year."' "■ .' ' :