GRANTS TO HELP STRIKERS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1929, 11 December 1913, Page 8

GRANTS TO HELP STRIKERS.

FROM UNION FUNDS. ARE THEY LAWFUL OR NOT? SUPREME COURT CASE. A case of much interest in regard to the right of a union to vote a sum of money lor the benefit of strikers' wives and children came on at the Supremo Court yesterday. His Honour tho Chief Justice <Sir Robert Stout) and His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman were on tho Bench.

The case was one in which John William F. M'Dougall, of Lower Hutt, compositor, and secretary of the Wellington Typographical Imion of Workers, was the plaintiff, and tho Typographical Union tho nominal defendants. The question which tho Court was asked to determine was the legality or otherwise of the union's decision to voto a sum of £100 for the benefit of tho wives and children of the waterside workers now on strike. Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared for the plaintiff (instructed by the union), Mr. P. J. O'Regan for tho Waterside Workers' Union, and tho Solici-tor-General (Mr. J. W. Salraond, K.C.) for the Attorney-General.

Statute Provisions. Mr. Findlay said that, in the application to the Court to decide tho legality of the union's proposed action, 3 question of great importance might arise. The. reason why tho. action had been brought was in view of tho fact that it had hitherto been the, practice of unions to make such votes unquestioned. Tho question was important, because it would affect all the industrial and trades unions in New Zealand. Tho Solicitor-General; I take it that tho question docs not affect trades unions? Mr. Findlay; It may bo; but I-am not referring to trades unions. Continuing, Mr. Findlay said that the Typographical Union was not registercd under tho Trades Union Act, but under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908, Section sof which read as follows:— "Subject to the provisions of this Act any society, consisting of not loss than three persons in the case of employers, or fifteen in tho case of workers, lawfully associated for tho purpose of protecting or furthering the interests of workers in, or in connection with any specified industry or industries in New Zealand, may be registered as an industrial union tinder this Act, in compliance with the following provisions " _ Paragraph 12 of Clause C of Section 5 of tho Act save a more general authority, as it provides for "any other matter "not contrary to law" being inserted in the rules of tho union. The rules of the Typographical Union, counsel proceeded, were passed by the Registrar of Industrial Unions, and he (counsel) referred tho Court to Rule 3, which, in outlining tho objects of tho union, read: — "To maintain a minimum rats of' wages for stab, work and a uniform scale of charges for piecework; to regulate the hours of labour, and to uphold the customs and usages of the trade, to regulate tho employment of apprentices and_ turnovers, to settle disputes (amicably where possible) between members of the union and their employers; to assist members ur>

employed, and also members leaving the city; t» support schemes calculated to benefit the trade- morally, socially, and intellectually: lo . assist other workers in difficulties." .Then, again, Rule 15 dealt with tho application of tho union's funds, and limited the extent of any particular voto to £10, except in the case of management expenses, and indicated the method to bo adopted by a general or special meeting in "assisting co-work-ers." Rule 31, too, provided For a ballot- before any money was voted, and requires a majority of 25 members for such a vote to be carried.

In reply to the Chief Justice, Mr. Findlay said that on -tho occasion of tho recent ballot by tho union all the provisions of tho rules were complied with. Proceeding, Mr. Findlay said that he thought it was agreed that the inert 1 passing of rules by tho Registrar did not necessarily give them validity. The Chief justice: You mean,'l suppose, that mere registration does not validate an invalid rule?

Mr. Findlay'replied that such was the case, and the question remained whether the union was entitled to have such a rulo in its objects, and that raised the question wliether Section 5 of the Act limited the ambit of tho workers.

The Chief Justice: You mean that the Typographical Union could not deal with a'tanning or other similar industry. That- is the point. I suppose yets will hiivo to contend that bcini* a specified industry they may think that by helping others they are helping; themselves. Mr. Findlay, continuing, said that it was submitted that industrial unions wero in the Same position as a statutory hotly, snd wero limited, therefore, in their poivors under Section 5. . Th\is,_ it Would seem that the object of the union in donating £100. could not be justified if their powers were so limited. Counsel further referred to the Osborne case in England, and said that, in the present ease, tho difference was that the actual vote was not for the strikers, but tho question was whether a charitable vote might be made to assist the wives and children of strikers iu another industry. Also was the application of funds to assist other workers assisting a. ''specific industry," and would the assistance of workers in some wholly dissociated class—say, shearers or walersido workers—he properly an object ?if the union? The majority of the union desired to vote the sum and desired to know the legality of the position.

"Casting Bread on the Waters." Mr. Justice Chapman said that, it might bo suggested that assistance could only be given to "co-workers," meaning workers in the typographical trade, or some associated trade. It was hard to suggest what direct interest the Typographical Union could havein suppoiling tho waterside workers, unless it was that Labour endeavours to assist Labour all round in what it thinks to bo in the best interest of Labour. It, may be, suggested that the Typographical Union was its biead upon tho waters, so that, if its members were some day on strike, they may get back the goodwill shown to tlio waterside workers. Crown's Contention. The Solicitor-Genera! submitted that itn industrial union has no power to expend its funds towards maintaining a strike in any distinct and unrelated industry, if it wore- in any related industry 'they might be perfectly justihcd in according monetary assistance. While trades unions could, for ail he knew, assist any strikers, an industrial union must limit its operations to a specified industry. Having regard to .Sections 5 and 7 of the Act, ho submitfed with confidence- that an _ industrial njiiou cannot lawfully exercise any powers exceut those conferred upon )t by the Statute, or so conferred by necessary indication from the Statute. It was quite clear that even a remote or indirect interest was not sufficient, and, in the case under review, there count not even bo a remote interest; it was a. more- charilabtet sift. It was execrdingW doubtful if the union had power to do this under their own rulss as

"co-workors" could mean, no vnorc than workers in the same industry. Tiie Opposite View. Sir. O'Hogan said that he was conf ran led with difficulty in approaching the opposite view. The Industrial, Conciliation and Arbitration Act was preeminently a working man's Act, and it had hecii repeatedly laid down by judges tlint Hie ordinary strict rules of construction do not apply to the Act. There wns nothing in "the.Act to show that after the rules of a union wore passed by the Registrar they had to be submitted to a revising barrister, which, he contended, showed that the. usual strict rules of interpretation are not applicable. Air, O'Kegan further dealt with the history of trade union legislation and the different points in the constitution of trades unions and industrial unions. He also said that the donntion'proposcd by the union was admittedly a charitable donation, and pointed out that it was a well-known fact in equity that Courts always Jean towards charities. Unlo-s there was some express provision in the Act forbidding the donation, the Court, ho submitted, must lean towards the. under construction of the Act towards tlio score of charity. Sir, ITiudlay having replied, and remarking that the suit was a friendly one, Their Honours reserved decision.