WHARF LABOUR CASE

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1073, 11 March 1911, Page 6

WHARF LABOUR CASE

UNION'S DEFENCE. THE QUESTION OF DAMAGES. Tlio hearing of the ease in which James Flowers proceeded against the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Union for £175 damages for refusing to admit him as a member, and asked for a mandamus to compel tlio union to do so was concluded yesterday morning before Mr. Justice Cooper. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. J. O'llegan for the defendant union.

Argument on tha Facts. Mr. O'llegan, at the outset of his argument, said that ho would not deal with the application for a mandamus, as he had already stated that the union was prepared to readmit Flowers if the court found that ho had been wrongfully excluded. Counsel went 011 to point out that it was the rule .that applications for membership must be in writing. The records did not show that Flowers applied in writing, and thus corroborated the evidence to that effect by tlio officials. The book-keeping system of the union was perhaps original and intricate, but was comprehensive and accurate, and it showed that tlio moneys mentioned as having been paid in by the plaintiff were all applied to reduction of his arrears. Counsel accordingly submitted that tlio evidence went to show that Flowers was not admitted to membership in April, 1908. and if his Honour also took that view, tlio case would bo dccided for the defendant upon the facts. Turning to the questions of law, counsel said that. the English cases quoted by Mr. Blair referred to English trade unions, and not to New Zealand industrial unions, which, owing to tho existenco of the Arbitration Act, and preference to unionists, wcro of quite a different character.

Judge's View as to Damages. , His Honour remarked that the English cases were quoted by counsel for the plaintiff mainly in reference to damages. Tho present case, if decided in favour ■of the plaintiff, would bo one for reasonable damages, which should bo computed largely upon the damages allowed in cases 0/ wrongful dismissal. Ho did not mind saying at once that the damages mentioned in tho statement of claim were excessive. An unskilled worker could not remain idle for six months and then claim damages to the full amount of the wages he might have earned if he had been at work all the time. "Would Paralyse tha Finances." Mr. O'Regan went on to say that, if, as counsel for tho plaintiff had contended, the union, instead of demanding arrears before, readmissiou, must first sue for the arrears in tho Magistrate's Court, tho finances of the union would be paralysed,'-because a man might join the union afresh year after year and never pay more than 3s. 6d. a year to the - funds. The union could not profitably sue a "man of straw" for 12s. After taking legal advice and finding that it could claim twelve months' arrears, the union, through' counsel, wrote that: if Flowers would pay tho 12s. he would be at once readmitted. The reply to that letter was tho writ on which ' tho present proceedings'ensued. The PlaintifJ's Caso.

Mr. Blair said that even the amount of 12s. was not due.

Mr/ O'Regan: We said that if ho would wafe due,''he would be readmitted.

Mr. Blair said tho union's demand was illegal in that it was excessive. He proceeded argue that tho ease was one for exemplary, or punitive, damages. '' • . .

His Honour said ho disagreed. If tho plaintiff was entitled to damages, it could only be reasonable damages by way of compensation.

Mr. Blair then contended that Flowers was a non-unionist beforo May, 1908, and that after that 110 was eligible for employment on the wharf under the preference clause, and obtained employment accordingly. He had ceased to be a member on July 2, 1907. Tho effect of tho evidence was, therefore, that plaintiff was admitted to the union in April or May, 1903.

His Honour said he would put his judgment into writing, and deliver it next Tuesday week.