SAILOR & HIS UNION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1734, 26 April 1913, Page 5

SAILOR & HIS UNION.

0 COUNSELS' ARGUMENT. MR. W. T. YOUNG & THE APPLICANT. THE RIGHT TO WORK. Argument was lioarcl in tho Magistrate't Court yesterday respecting the caso in which Julius Hansen, a 6oaman, sued William Thomas Young, secretary of the Federated Seamon's Union of Australasia, mid tho union, claiming .CI!) as damAges. Hansen alleged that tho defendants had (with tho intention of preventing him from obtaining work) unlawfully re/used to permit him to join tho union. J)r. A, M'Arthur, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr. A. Blair appeared for tho plaintiff, Hansen, and Mr. P. J. O'Rogan for tho defendants. On Thursday, when Mr. Blair opened (he caso for Hansen, ho remarked that tlio case was both novel and important; it involved tho right of a man to follow liis avocation. It was common for employers to deny employment to nonunionists, and it was therefore of supreme importance that a man should bo enabled to join a union, provided, of course, that there was no valid objection to liirn. \\hcn Hanson mado his application tc join the union, Mr. Young said: "You won't got employment as a.seaman until you pay mo £5." Hanson happened to have £1, and (quito wrongly) ho offered that, for oven that demand for £] was extortion. The agreement between tho Seameu'9 Federation and the shipowners, contained' a clauso giving preference to unionists. That agreement was entered into in Jaiiuary, 1912, and membership in tho union ,was to be open to men of good character. If thoro were any claim on Hansen for arrears it could at most bo only for'l2s., if tho union did still exist. ,The union, however, did not now exist.

Mr. Blair's Address. x 0 11 tho caso- being resumed yesterday. t'ii'i ,■ 11 " sa that 'hero was really very uttlo disputo with regard to the facts. I hero was no doubt tlmt Young had Offered to permit Hansen to join the union on payment of .£5 55., which, Young Said, was duo to the old union, to which Hanten had belonged. "That," said Mr. lilair, ' is quito sufficient for my putpoeo in this case.' Ho added that tho demand of tho uhion for moro than 12s, was improper and illegal. Ur Si' Arthur: That is a year's subscription?

llr. Blair: 16s. And in support oi that I refer your Worship to the Union'.own l?ule 3,sub-clauso 7, which saysi "N< worker whoso' subscription is one year in nrrear will bo returned as a member lo the registrar," It was truo that sub-sec-tion i of liulo 3 provided for voluntary resignation. The fact that tho union had registered indicated that its rides comphed with the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.. Sub-section of tho Act provided for tho purging of tho rollß of the union by striking oil members who wore twelve months in arrears. That .purging did not frco anyone from arrears, but inasmuch as a man who was ono year m arrears ccnscd to bo a mm. bor, ho could not bo liable for moro than iwnr ir n tlla(: s' Mr ' 'A decision by Air. Justico Cooper supported this contention In the caso now Iwforo the Court, Hansen, thotigh only owing 12«., uud actually been willing tx> pay «C 1 irhicli was Bs.' more than could 1« do' mauded.

"Speaking in all seriousness," continued Mr. Blair,,"tho attitude of tho Union is ono wjuchi.it should very seriously consider, becauso its action in this matter is to anybody who has Iho interests of (ho workers at heart something which tends to bring the administration of unions into discredit. A union has a sacred duly to its members in connection with the operation of tho preference clause, and if it errs at all it should err on the side of leniency. But in this case, however. Hansen has been compelled to follow the vocation of a wharf labourer, and, when stringency of work in that lino impelled mil to go to sea, ho endeavoured to join tho union. Tho union has committed ;i very great wrong through not allowing iuin to do so. Mr. Young said to mo vfcs. terday that he had treated lots of other men as he had treated Hansen, and I am 6eriously disappointed to think that a union which could do things liko that should still consider itself a friend of the working man."

Argument by Mr. O'Rogan. In his address, Mr. O'Regan said' that tho terms "trade-union union," "Industrial union," "lalxmr union," etc., wero used loosely and inaccurately. Wo had in this country two distinct classes of union —trade unions and industrial unions. The fundamental difference between tho two was -this! A trado union might exist without, registration, .while registration is, as it were, ■ tile breath of life of an industrial union. Once cancellation of nn industrial union's registration had been carried out, tho union ceased to exist as !tn industrial union> although it eoiisirnefivety retained it.s status for certain purposes. _With a trado union, however, the position was different. Such a union could exist without, registration, and, since cancellation, tile Seamen's Union had been an unregistered trade union. Tho agreement to which it and the shipping companies aro parties was not enforceable in anv Court Law. At best it amounted to an undertaking on 11,10 part of the companies that, in their contracts of service with seamen, (hey would grant tonus to the men not less favourable than tho terms of the Agreement. If they broke that agreement, the men could strike or threaten to strike.

In accordance, therefore, with (he .settled law as applicable to trade unions dir. O'lfegan continued), no Court ln\d jurisdiction to enforce either tho agreement or the rul&M of tho Seamen's Union, Tho nniou itself had not now tlio power which, as nn industrial union, it had to sue for contributions. The only possible method which it could have of'enforcing its rules is by refusing the privileges of memlwrship to defaulters. H might bo argued that this conceded tho right of the unions to make themselves cioso corporations. That must be admitted. There never was anything to prevent unions from making tlio admission conditions as exclusive as they thought lit. Even in tho case of an industrial union thero was no•thing in the Arbitration Act to prevent it. from imposing any conditions which it pleases on applicants for admission,

Mr, Blair on "Close Corporations," Mr. Ulair _ replied thai. Mr. O'Kegan was wrong ill elating that it was competent for unions to muko themselves close corporations. A union was not like ;i social club, for" to debar, a man from n union was to interfere with his right to follow his avocation. Such interference, he held, wns an actionable wrong. During Mr. O'Regan's nddres,s, Dr. Sl'Arthur'remarked tlrat lie considered that there wns really no nctio'n for damages against Young. Tho decision of the Court; wns reserved.