TRADES UNION FUNDS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 836, 7 June 1910, Page 2

TRADES UNION FUNDS.

Sir,—The o\her day you gave some attention to' the effect of the House of Lords' judgment in the Osborne case in its application to industrial law in this country. You were dealing with the refusal of the Begistrar. of Trade Unions to grant registration to the . Shearers' federation until it had removed from ita platform certain objects outside ihe scope of trade unionism as defined by the law that grants these unions their privileges. I want to call your attention, to another matter that calls as loudly for the interference of the registrar as the rules of the Shearers' Federation. Tho essence of the House of Lords' judgment is that trade unions cannot spend their funds as. they choose, but only within limits set by the purpose of incorporation. Is'ow, I don't know whether you are aware that tbo local Labour newspaper is partly owned by trade unions; You will find in almost every recent issuo a report that this or that union has made a penny levy on members for the purchase of copies of this paper, and that this or that union has Vocided to take up so < many shares in it. I submit that .by doing so these unions have broken the law, and must be deprived of registration. Let me briefly state my reasons for holding this opinion—an opinion which lam perfectly certain will be sustained by the Courts if they are given an opportunity to pass a judgment in the matter. Sir. Jenkins, Ji.C, acting for 'the plaintiff, Osborne, admitted for the sako' of argument that tho union could use its funds in supporting one of its members as a member of Parliament. Sir. Justice Neville took this for granted, and in his decision he said that the question of how a trade union might use its funds was "purely a Question of policy with which the Courts will not concern themselves." It was this decision that was overturned by the Court of Appeal and tho House of. Lords. During tho argument of tho case at its various stages a good many analogies were presented, and .amongst them the case of a newspaper supported by trades union funds for other purposes than the strict purpose of incorporation. It was urged that a union could spend its money in any way.it chose that was not illegal under the general law. This contention was ruled right out by the Court of Appeal, whose decision was upheld by tho House of Lords. In the course of his judgment, tho Master of the Rolls, after quoting the definition of a trade union from the Act of 1871 (which'is the definition in our own Trade Union Act), used . theso important words :— ''It is argued that a trade union, registered under and claiming the benefit of the Act of 1871, and thereby constituted not a corporation, but a species of quasi-corporation, can, in addition to the objects ulainly indicated in the statutory definition of trade unions, and ' in the other sections of the Act, with any provisions merely auxiliary to these ob'ects, also add any otliet object not otherwise illegal. Thus, it may carry on a trade subject only to the restrictions as to the number of members imposed by Section i of the Companies Act, 1882; or it may devote its funds to the-", promotion' of any political or religious party, or to the encouragement of any athletic sports, and it will mine tho leva's bo a trade union, with all the rights, privileges, and disabilities of a trade union. I *m unable to accede to this argument. The. definition contained intho Act of IS7I, or the amended definition in Section 1G of the Act of IS7C, is a limiting and restrictive definition. In my opinion it is not competent to u trado union either. originally to insert in its objects, or by amendment, to add to its objects, something so wholly distinct from tho objects contemplated by the Trade Union Acts as a. provision to secure Parliamentary representation.

"Trado unions comprise members' of every shade of political opinion, and I cannot think it was the intention of the Legislature that it should ho competent to a majority of the members to compel a minority to support by their votes, still less by their subscriptions, political opinions which they may abhor, under penalty not only of boine expelled from tho

union, and thus losing all chance of benefit, b.ut also the risk, and, in some cases, the very serious risk, of not being ablo to find employment in their trade in consequence of the refusal of trade union members to work with non-union members. This is the conclusion which I have reached by the mere considerations of tho Acts of 1871 and 5876. But I think it is permissible to refer to tho Trade Disputes Act, 1006, which applies to every trade union under the earlier Acts. It seems to me extravagant to suppose that the immunities and exceptions conferred by that Act can have been intended to apply to any business which' a trade union might add to what I may call strictly trade union purposes. In short, that Act confirms the view that a trade union registered under tho earlier Acts must be a body with limited objects. I am unable to agree with the judgment of Mr. Justice Barling and Mr. Justice Phillimoro in I ho case of Steele v. South Wales Miners' Federation, followed by Mr. Justice Neville. They seem to have been largely influenced by the omission of any reference to 'benefits' in the. definition of trade unions. But, as I have pointed out, the Act itself say that a trade union may provide benefits. I cannot concur in the view that there is nothing to prevent a trade union from having a great ■ number of additional objects besides." This judgment settles beyond all doubt the illegality of applying trade union funds to the maintenance of a newspaper that has for its pbject the dissemination of political opinions that have nothing to do with the real purpose of the trade union as it is recognised by the law. It may ba worth while quoting two extracts from the judgment of Lord Macnaghten. The principle, he said, waa nowhere laid down more clearly than by Lord Watson in "Baroness Wenlock v. Kiver Deo Company": "Whenever a corporation is created by' Act of Parliament with reference to the purposes of the Act and solely with a view to carrying those purposes into execution, I am of opinion not only that the objects which the corporation may legitimately pursue must be ascertained from the. Act itself, but that the powers 'which tire corporation may lawfully use in: furtherance of thesa objects must either by expressly conferred or derived by reasonable implication from its provisions." And again, after referring to the definition of "trads union," he said: "When Parliament adopts an expression in common use at the time, and assigns to it a particular meaning, it is difficult to see how it can be argued that the expression as used in the Act and for the purposes of the Act does not mean simply that which the Act says it does mean, but means thai and anything else in the world not in itself illegal which may be tacked on to it." In view of these facts I cannot understand how the Labour Department or the Crown Law Office has neglected to give attention to the expenditure of trade union funds in the running of 6Ucb. A paper.as the "Weekly Herald."' It will be urged, of course," that tho. Trade Union Act does not apply. But that does not alter the case a scrap. I incline to think that the Government is aware of all I have pointed out, but fears to offend Labour. —I.am, etc., . LEX. , [The question -raised by our correspondent was brought under the notice of Mr; Tregear of the Labour Department. That gentleman, however, was not prepared to express an opinion off-hand.]