SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3147, 27 July 1917, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

INDUSTRIAL UNIONS

SCOPE OF THEIR.ACTIVITIES

In tlie Supreme Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Hubert Stout).a, cusp, of considerable importance to industrial unions was argued. The plaintiff, lor whom Mr. P. J. O'Ktgan appeared, was the Ohincmurl nines aud Batteries industrial Union of Workers, and the defendant was the. Itegistrar of Industrial Unions, for whom Mr. P. S. K. ITacaseey, of the Crown Law Office, appeared. The question involved wns whether a union registered under the Arbitration Act. could make provision for sickness and accident benefit for members. The plaiutitl sought to embody in the rules of the union provision for the pnyiucnt of accident benefits whereby every ine.nibor disabled by injury arising out of the course of Ilia employment or while going to or returning from work, whether entitled to compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act or not, should receivo £1 per week for twelve months, and thereafter during any period of partial disablement 10s. per week. Provision was further made for the imposition of levied to provide funds for these benefits. The Registrar refused to register the rules unices the benefit provisions were expunged, on tlxs ground ;t.hat they were ultra vires under, the provisions of tlie Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr.. O'lU'Biui, for plaintiff, submitted (a) that Section 5 (c).(XII) of the Arbitration Act gives power to industrial unions to provide any other rules for various matters, including any other matter notcontrary to law; (b) that a statutory corporation lias not only those powers that are specifically provided for or referred to by the Act under which it. h; incorporated, but also other powers as may reasonably be implied. . and that power to Brovide for benefits could be so reasonably implied; (<■) an industrial union, though registered and incorporated under the Arbitration Act, nevertheless remained a trade union within the meaning of Section 2 of the Trade Unions Act, and consequently retained all the powers of a, trade union. Unless these contentions were correct the. provisions of Section 8 would he meaningless, in that they purported to allow trade unions till rc~ Kislerrd under the Trade Unions Art lo become industrial.unions .subject lo these rules being raodiOcd in order to bring them into conformity with the Arbitration Act. Every Irado union embodied the characteristic, of a friendly society in that it invariably provided benefits .to members, if the contentions raised by the Registrar were correct, observed Jlr. p'Hegan, a trade union would become an industrial uuioii only by depriving itself of its functions as a benefit society.

For the Crown. Mr. Macassey submitted: (li An industrial union vraa limited as,to iis powers or objects by the. purposes of iho Arbitration Act; (?.) tho purposes of the Act as set out in the preamble were to cfiect "the Rett lenient, of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration"; (3) .the powers of ah industrial union were confined to (a) making' use of the provisions of tho Act. for the settlement, of disputes in the industry-in respect to which it was formed, (h) dealing with conditions of employment in the. industry, (c) dealing with "industrial matters" in the industry; 14) under no circumstances rould a benefit scheme be considered to have any rolnlion lo "the. settlement of Industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration": (51 thn benefit rules were illegal ;is being contrary u> the Life Insurance Act. 1908, that a contract of life insurance was illegal at, common law, and could only be legalised under the Life Insurance Act. Trade unions wero specially exempted by the Trade. Unions Act, hut. no Mich exemption applied in tho case of industrial After hcjiiiriE counsel, His Honour reserved his decision. BESBET-ED JUDGMENT. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert. Stout) delivered his reserved judgment, in the. appeal case in which F. de J. Clere. architect, of Wellington, was the appellant, and K. Hobertshawo and others, of Dannevirke, the respondent!)! The appeal was against a decision given by the Magistrate at. Daunexirke. In the lower Court, Clere sued Hobertshavic and the other members of the vestry of tho Anglican , Church at Danuevirke for £149 for professional services rendered. The plaintiff prepared plans a.ndi specifics tiona for additions to a church, and the question was whether he undertook to prepare such plans and specifications for a building that would not. exceed a. cost of £1500/ The Magistrate held that the cost of Ilin building was not to exceed t.he amount, mimed, and though the- defendants Jiad required certain additions to be made - to the work, these were not more l.hau .WOO, and as Hit- disparity between £1900 and the lowest tender (£2839) was too great, the defendants had a. right to refuse to pay for the services the plaintiff had rendered. In the conrso of his judgment. His Honour said that, there was no guarantee that the cdJfti would not eiceed £1500. Alterations were required (o thn plan which wae accepted. From correspondence that passed between the appellant and tho vestry at. the time, the vestry did not consider that Iho appellant had no claim for work and labour done. In a letter the vc6try Informed tho appellant that they did not propose to proceed with tho new church until prices became normal unless something unfotvseen happened, and asked what position they were in regarding the plans and i-pecincatious, and added Ihnt they were fully aware of the unfortunate position in which they ,were placed and were, trying to retire in the most. grace : ful manner possible. To Ibis communication the, appellant, replied, claiming that he. was entitled, according to architects' charges, to a commission of 5i per cent., hill, offered to give a donation equal to hi.'f the amount of the claim (£1«). The vestry did not agree, to tho oiler. After traversing,the evidence placed before the Court, His Honour upheld the appeal and allowed the. sura of £67 commission, with ,£S ss. costs At thn hearing, Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the appellant, and Mr. 31. H. Hoberlchawo (Dannevirke) for the, respondents. A TRANSACTION IN FKUIT. His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards delivered reserved judgment in tho appeal case of Simon Edilson, fruiterer,' Wellington, against. Ivo Selwyn Joyce, fruit dealer, of Wellington. Joyce entered Into contracts with Edilson and others to supply apples of certain quality in instalments. After four instalments had been delivered, as to the quality ok' which complaints were made, Edilson repudiated the contract,- and declined to accept, further deliveries. Joyce brought an action in the. Magistrate's Court, and was awarded £J3 lift". 6d. special damages and £20 general damages by Mr. W. G. Kiddell. S.M. On a counter-claim by Edilson for damages arising out of faulty shipments which hud been accepted. Kdllson was awarded £? Us. Edilson appealed against the Magistrate's decision, and His Honour allowed tho appeal, with £20 costs and disbursements, the costs in tho Court below to be fixed by the Magistrate. His Honour held that on the construction of Section 33, sub-Section 2.. of the Sale of Foods Act 1908. the. contract, although for delivery by instalments, was an entire contract, and that a breach by either party affecting the root of the contract cutitlcd either party to repudiate it. As argument had not been heard on tlie judgment, on the counter-claim, that was or-, rtered to stand. At the hearing in Mi 0 Supreme Court, Mr. A. Gray, K. 0.. with him Mr. D. R. lloggard, appeared for ftdilson, and Mr. l>. jr. Putnam for Joyce. PRISONERS SENTENCED By Telegraph—Press Association. „„ ~, . Dunedln, July 26. Me 10l lowing ■prisoners were sculeueed by Mr. Justice Sim to-day:—Tasman William Wilson, on five charges of breaking and entering, six months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be cumulative, and prisoner to be retained therealter for reformative treatment, not exceeding five years; Thomas Kmry Eosltilly, aged sixteen, for indecently assmilting two little girls, six months , imprisonment, and to be detained for reformative treatment for a term not exceeding five years; William Haunine (18), breaking and entering at. C\u-ka six months' imprisonment, and refermati-'c treatment not exceeding n>. ye-uy