SAILOR & HIS UNION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1737, 30 April 1913, Page 4

SAILOR & HIS UNION.

HANSEN'S CASE,

COURT UNABLE TO HELP HIM. . I : THE UNION Wlltfs. Decision was given in tho Magistrate d Court yesterday by Dr. Si' Arthur, S.M., iir tho case in which Julius Hansen, a seaman, sued William Thomas Young, secretary of the Federated Seamen s Union of Australasia, and tho union,' claiming J;l!) .as damages.' Hansen alleged tnut the defendants had (with the intention of preventing him liom obtain-. iiig work) unlawfully refused tJ permit bun to join the union. - At the hearing Mi'. -A. Blair appeared for the plaintiff, and J. U Hogan lor the defendants. In the courso of his decision his AVor"The facts are virtually admitted, and both counsel are aware that as between tlie parties they are dealing with a non-registered union, that is, as i. ■tako it, with a union coining under the Trades Union Act, 1908, and the decisions, under the Imperial Act, from which this Act is drawn. Section sof the said Act provides that: " 'Nothins'in this Act shall enabio any Court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of . 'directly enforcing or recovering dam- '• ages tor tlie breach of any of tlie fol- . lowing agreements, namely:— " : " '(a) Any agrement between ■ members ol a trade union as such, concerning tlio conditions 011 which any members, fur the time being . of such trade union shall or shall not . . . be employed. "'(b) Any agrement for the payment by any person of any subscription or fine to a trade union.' "To me, tli'2 abovo provisions seem conclusive that this, or any other Court can- • not entertain any legal proceedings instituted with tho'object of enforcing or recovering damages for tlio non-admission .'of.a.new member into tho trades union. This may be contrary to the spirit of tho democracy of the present day, but it appears to me to be the plain reading of, and conclusion to be drawn from, tho :;Act. lam not responsible for the pre--sent-day legislation, which, in fairness, is ■only a replica of tlie Imperial Act of :iß7f." Counsel for tho plaintiff (Mr. Blair), continued liis Worship, had quoted tho preference clause of the agreement entered into in January, 1912, between <the shipping companies and the union, but Itliis could not support- the claim. His -•Worshiup went on to Say: "The gist of "counsel for- the plaintiff's argument is that 'the plaintiff was written off the books/ and that, therefore,- all he was liablthfor, in order to rejoin the union, was 'HI .the utmost <to pay oho year's arrears in order to rejoin the union as a new '-.member. " This,-L would bo willing to admit had the society' or union, or whatever it may have been called, remained registered: but this was not so—' it bad broken off from the bonds of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905. . ■ "... On the opinion I hold of the authorities quoted 011 the case, there is no power for tliis Court to enforce or uphold the claim of the plaintiff, and,, therefore, judgment must be given for the. defendants.