TRADE UNION'S IRON METHOD.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1876, 9 October 1913, Page 8

TRADE UNION'S IRON METHOD.

1 ITS WAY WITH MEMBERS. peculiar system of fines. Sonic interesting remarks in reference t:i objectionablo provisions in the rules of a union were made by the Court of Arbitration in Auckland recently. Tile case before the Court was that of the Auckland Pork Butchers' Union of "Worl ;ers v. the Registrar of Industrial Unions, the union applying for separate registration. It appeared lt-hat fihe Registrar had refused to register the new union on the ground that thero already existed a union to which he considered members of tho new union might conveniently belong. As announced in a' Press Association telegram, the Court ruled in favour of the Registrar, but in doing so made some remarks, which have not previously been published hero. The remarks referred to the rules of the oxisting registered union in regard t} fines. In this connection, tho Court said: These rules contain what appear to us to be very objectionable provisions. Thus a member who resigns from tho union, .whilst engaged in any branch of tho butchery trade covered by an award, has to pay a retiring' feo of £5, unless he is retiring from the trade or transferring to another district. Any member. who fails to attend a special meeting without lawful excuse must be fined is. If a member reflects on any resolution adopted ho subjects himself thereby to a fine, tho amount of which has to be decided by the committee. Any member circulating or causing to be circulated any report which may be considered detrimental to tho well-being of the union, or calculated to injure any member of it, has to be fined not less than as. for the first offence, and for a second offence ho has to suffer such punishment as a meeting of the union may think fit. There is no provision for making levies at a special meeting called for that purpose. There is no limit as to the amount of such levies, and they may be made apparently for any such purpose as may ba resolved on by such meeting. ■ Tho provisions mentioned are tho most objectionable, but there are others nearly as bad. "The position of a member under these rules is that he is exposed to an unlimited pecuniary liability in tho matter of lovies, and lie cannot escape from tho union unless lie is in a position to -pay a; retiring fee of £5. Ho may be hold to bo guilty of reflecting on a resolution adopted by merely saying that ho disapproves of it, and he may bo fined for this offence any eum the committee is pleased to fix. In view of these provisions, it is doubtful whether we ought to say that the existing union is ono to which the members of tho appellant union can conveniently belong. No objection,- however, on this ground was taken by the appellant union, and, after somo hesitation, we have decided to deal with the appeal on tho ground taken by the appellant union. . . . It is desirable to add that preference of employment for ,its members should not be granted to any union having rules such as these, and any union which has obtained preference already runs a serious risk of losing preference if it has such rules whon it next applies to the Court for a new award." • •