THE SEAMEN'S UNION

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2134, 28 April 1914, Page 7

THE SEAMEN'S UNION

WHAT CONTROL?

INTERESTING TEST CASE

i,COURT APPLIED TO. Interesting proceedings affecting the Seamen's Union were commenced in the Supreme Court yesterday. . The. proceedings were, instituted in the form bf.au originating summons taken by Daniel Donovan, and William Thomas Young, president and secretary of tho Wellington section of the New Zealand branch of the Australasian Federated Seamen's Industrial Association of Workers, against Murdock M'Kenzio and William Belcher, president and secretary of the Dunedin section, and Adam Nixon, and John K. Kneen, president and secretary of the Auckland section. His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir..Robert Stout) presided. Sir John Find Jay, K.C., with him Mr. 0. Stout, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. A. W. Blair for tho defendants.

Tho Questions for the Court. The. application was for judgment on tho rules of tho New Zealand branch of the: association, and 1 , the Wellington section of the branch, and the questions for the Court ■ wero: — • > .Whether xhe present members of the • 'Wellington section are still to bo deemed to be in office and to have powor and authority appertaining to thefr-respective offices? .Whether vacancies have arisen in such offices whioh can be filled in the manner provided by Rulo 18 of tho rules of such section? Is tho Wellington section under an obligation to obey the Executive Council set up by the aforesaid rules of tho New Zealand branch of the Australasian Federated Industrial Association of Workers, or any substitute provided for such Executive Council by such rules?, "■ ' Notwithstanding that the date fixed by Rule 9 of tho rules of the Wellington section for the election of offi-. . cors of such section has passed, can -an election of officers Jie now pro- ■• ceeded with under such rale? Tho following question was' withdrawn by plaintiff's- counsel: If the secretary of the Dunedin section of the Federationrefused to prcparo and furnish to the Wellington section a sufficient number of ballot papers as provided by SubSeotion 5 of Rule 9 of the rules of tho Wellington, section, can the executive of such section issue such papers and legally hold an election? , The plaintiffs and the defendants constitute the Executive Council of the New Zealand branch of the Australasian Federated Seamen's Industrial Association of Workers.

A "Friendly" Action. _ Mr. Blair described the action, as a friendly one, but he said that it was -.. doubtful whether a declaratory _ judgment would b'o of any effect owing to the provisions of the Declaratory Judgments Act. The "Wellington section became a corporate body in January .of the present year.. The association was • merely what might be termed a club. • Up -till February, 1912, it was a trade union. .' , ' Sir John Findlay said that the association was not a trade union, but was registered under the Arbitration Act as an association. ■> Mr. Blair replied that that registra- / tion was cancelled,, early, in 1912. The Wellington' section ■ was not incorporated till ,1914, the 'Auckland section:.- some time before Wellington, and the Bun-, edin section was not yet incorporated. Mr. Blair mentioned' that. there was an affidavit from Auckland to the effect that in four cases (in 1903,' 1905, 1908. and 1910) similar difficulty aroso in. Auckland, where the union did not trouble to get : nominations, and the previous oxeoutivo carried on till ithe nest year.

The Matter of Registration. In addressing tho Court, Sir, John Findlay said that up till 1901 there was an Australasian Seamen's Union with a branch in New Zealand. Prior tn 1901, this branch was divided into Wellington, Dunodin, arid' Auckland sections. On Augusts, 1909, the Wellington section registered under tho Arbitration Act of 1900 as the Wellington section of the Australasian Union. On the same dato the Auckland and Djtnedin sections, ' also/ were registered. Recently the Wellington executive called for nominations for officers, and,-having received them, forwarded them to the head .office in Dunedin in-accordance with tho rules of tho Wellington branch. The secretary of tho Dunedin head office had a duty % imposed on hira to ■ send out ballot papers sufficient in number for every member o the different sections to vote. However, he refused to do this. His Honour: He took the stand that each section elected its' own officers. Sir John Findlay: Yes, but in the rules it is not provided that tho secretary can. do this. Counsel went on to say that both tho Federation and the branches cancelled their registration under the Act on Januarv 18. 1912. ' His Honour: Then the thing was at an end. Sir John Findlay agreed that the unions ceased to exist upon the cancellation of the registration. Ho sub-, mitted that the Association ceased to exist on January 18, 1912. On October 20, 1913, the strike occurred, and an agreement was arrived at between the Seamen's Union and the Shippinc Companies on December 19, 1913. By Paragraph 3 of the agreement the Auckland branch was to, Temain registered (that branch had registered in June, 1912). and it was still rbgisternd. The Dunedin and Wellington branches undertook to register forthwith.' Tho Wellington section did so on Januarv 14, 1914, but the Dunedin branch had not done so, and so had not carried out its agreement. ■• ■

"A Non-existent Union." Mr. Blair said that it was purely accidental that Dunedin was not registered. Thev had sent the registrar the rules they were registered under before and he objected to register thorn. # His Honour: As far as the Court is concerned it is a non-existent union. Sir John Fmdlay doubted if tho officers were validly appointed. They were, he contended, appointed under rules of a society which had ceased to through tho cancellation of Its registration. Were tho plaintiffs in anyway bound to regard the Federation? His Honour: Where is the head offico? Kir John Findlay: At Dunedin. His Honour: There is no head office. If the Federation- is .not registered it is not in existence. Sir John Findlay claimed that tho plaintiffs were not under any obligation to the Federation, and could elect officers without referenco to it. Mr. Blair submitted that tlie Federation was still being carried on as ft club, or a partnership. , It was a meeting of tho Federation,- as it was called, which settled the agreement. Tho whole thing had heen in a mudalo, His Honour observed. If it was not registered, it was not a corporation at all. _ Mr. Belcher had treated the corporation as non-existent. Decision was reserved.