SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 285, 28 August 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

AN UNUSUAL CASE

POWERS OF A.S.R.S. EXECUTIYE COUNCIL REMOVED FROM OFFICE In the Supreme Court yesterday Ilii! Honour Mr. Justice Edwards heard the case of Martin Joseph Lee against tho Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. Mi 1 , P. J. O'Kegan appeared for Lee and Mr. M. Myers for the society. The statement of, claim set out that the plaintiff, who is a railway guard, and a member of the Appeal Board for tho North Island, was elected a member of the Executive Council of the Railway Union .for a term of thros years, in accordance with the rules. That on March 31, 1919, acting honestly in. the course of his duty plaintiff addressed a letter to the secretary of the Palmerston North branch office of the union. In this letter plaintiff referred to tho departure from Wellington of tho gen* oral secretary without consulting the Exeoutive Council. The letter also gave details of the interview the council had with Messrs. Hiley and M'Villy. In consequence of having written this letter plaintiff was by resolution of the council removed* from the office of executive councillor. The plaintiff therefore claimed a declaration that the expulsion was illegal and ultra vires and asked for an injunction restraining the Executive Council from expelling or purporting to expel him from the Executive Council, and damag'GS for tli© un\vo-rraJitablo ttfid illegal conduct for expelling or purporting to expel him from the council, and ,£IOO damages. . Mr. O'Regan, in opening, gave the facte as outlined above, and stated that tho letter gave umbrage to Lee's fellowmombers of the executive a.nd he was expelled from the Executive / Council, with the result that they had this anomalous position: that Lee was elected to the executive by the fellow-members of ma union and he was expelled from the council by the officers of the council. lie oontondod that the action of tho council was ultra vires and harsh and unjustifiable. The other side relied upon Rule 11 of the society's rules, under which tho expulsion was made. Lee was expelled from the Executive Council because his letter of Marc(i 31 was regarded as misconduct on his part as an officer of the society, and further that the contents ol his letter was a ferious reflection on the integrity of the officers of the society. The whole question was whether the forwarding of the letter of March 31 was misconduct in accordance with Rule 11. Mr. Myers contended that the decision of the tribunal was final unless it could be shown that the rule was ultra vires. Martin Joseph Lee, the plaintiff, m giving evidence said he had been in the railway service for 29 years. He had been negotiating as one of the Executue Council with the railway authorities for an increase of wages. He admitted writing the letter of March 31. While passing through Palnierston North altc.'] the interview with the Minister of Jtailwnys and General Manager witness lienru that the general secretary was to address tho members at Palmerston North. ;H this time the olfer of the boveroment had not been considered bv the Executive Council; it was not definitely before that body and the general secretary (Mr. iMack) was hot authorised to address the union. J?roin other facts ascertained by witness, it appeared to him that the president and general secretary-were anxious to have the proposals of 'lie Govormnent accepted. At that time witness felt that the Executive Council had not done the best possible, and witness wrote tho letter with the object o. having it read at. tho special meeting to be addressed by the general sccretaiy. It was not read at.that.meeting. It was treated as .branch correspondence. Later the'letter,'was brought before ■the Executive Council at a special meeting, when witness. addressed the council in justification pf his conduct. At that meeting lie removed from oflice. in writing th.o lettor ho had no intention [ of injuring the orpanisntiou, nor had he' any intention of reflecting on the integrity of either tho .president of the Executive Councilor the .'general seoretary. To Mr. Myers: He had a fair hearing when ho addressed tho council. He was invited to slay while the matter was discussed by tlie council, but he declined to'do so. He took this stand because at a previous meeting of the council the president said that it had reached a position in which either tho witness should leave the council or the . president would resign his seat. Witness told the Executive Council that the letter he sent to Palmerston North was official on his part, and that there was no secret about it. He felt that tho Executive Council looked upon his action as unfriendly. He liiid expressed 110 regret for writing the letter, and he felt none now. The Executive Council consisted of nine members, including the witness, fliid he was the only one who openly dissentod from tho proposals submitted by the Minister of Railways and General Manager. At no time was there any intention on the part of the railway men to strike. There was considerable dissatisfaction. The Department rejected most of the proposals submitted by tho society in connection with the conditions "of service. At a meeting of the Executive Council on April M it was decided to call a meeting of delegates from the various branches of tho service, aud this conference was held iri the following month. The witness was closely cross-examined on the'contents of the letter of March 31, which led to his expulsion from the Executive Council. This concluded the ease for the plaintiff. Mr. Myers applied for a nonsuit. He contended that rule 11 of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants waa made specially to meet cases of this' kind and gave the executive the' right to remove from office any member for what in its judgment it considered to bo misconduct. The A.S.R.S. had on its roll over 8000 members, and the Enginedrivers, Eiremen, and Cleaners' Association had over 2000 members.. The mem'beis of the latter association, he alleged, were openly talking of striking. . Mr. o'R«gai» said there was no .evidence as to that, and lie believed the association would strongly resent such a suggestion. Mr. Myers contended that the expulsion of Lee from the Executive Council was done under the powers conferred on tho executive by rule 11, which wiia based on the regulation provision of the Arbitration Act, under which the society was formed. He maintained that tho ru.V's enabled the Executive Council to expel a member for conduct mentioned in the rules, and to fill the vacancy. His Honour: 'Might that not. give the Executive Council power to make itself a close corporation : J Mr. Myers contended that it did not. The council had to come up for election every three years. His Honour «aid he could not grant a nonsuit at that stage; in fuel, he had not considered llie matter, The case was uiKiuestionably an important one. Mr. Myers,'continuing, submitted that the letter written by f.e« wns a most improper one, and justified the council in removing, him from office. Instead of expressing regret for his action, lie endeavoured to justify it, and even now he could see nothing wrong in it. Richard Hampton, president of the A.S.R.S. for the past four years, said tint in February last the society submiffed to tho railway management certain proposals in respect to conditions of service and increase in wages. At that time there was considerable discontent. The Engine-drivers, Firemen, and Cleaners Association was also then making proposals to the Government. The other association took a ballot on the question of whether they would accept the coun-ter-proposals of the Government or strike. They convplaincd that (hey had been kept waiting 100 long. It was a verv anxious time, and witness was doing his best then In bring about conciliation. Witness gave details of the negotiations with the Minister of Railways and with the management of the Railway Department. It was arranged with tho Minister for the council to clear up as many as possible of the technical questions with the management. The council saw Mr. Hiley; aud Mr. M'Villy, and there was a friendly discussion of the proposals submitted by the. association. No decision was reached, and it was understood that Mr. Hiley could call upon one or two members of tha council should ho require further

information. The witness and the general secretary were called up by Mr. Hiley to give information. The council discussed the proposal's made by the Department and the council approved of what was to be submitted to the Minister of Railways. The plaintiff was present at that meeting. .After the interview with the Minister the council again met and there was no complaint us to what was said at the' interview with the Minister. At the request of a number of branches witness visited some ol j them and explained the proposals. The general secretary, did the same, but in any case the secretary had the riidit to visit the branches. He was satisfied that, the council had gone as far as it could in conciliatory methods, in view of the firm attitude taken up by the Department. With respect to Lee's letter the executive was very sorry that the position had arison, at the same time it considered that it could not do rtherwise than remove Mr. I.ee from officc. The letter had a very bad effect with some of the branches that knew its contents. The letter as a whole raised suspicion regarding the witness and the general secretary, and at several of the branches witness had a hostile reception To Mr. O'Kegan: There had i been differences of opinion between witness and tho plaintiff. I.ee had accused him of rushing' matters and he had characterised Leo as an untruthful person. Though the word "strike" was- never used at any of the meetings of the executive council, there was no doubt, that the position was very acute. If Leo was aggrieved he should have moved for a conference of delegates. There was no doubt considerable dissatisfaction among the railway servants. ' To Mr. Myers: There were <16 branches of the .A.S.R.S., Matthew .Tosenh Mack, general sefiietary of the A.S.R.S., safd that neither he nor the executive council asked tho branches not to send in resolutions oi sympathy with Mr. Lee. Witness was present at all with the general Manager and the Minister of Kanways. What Mr. Hamoton said to the Minister was approved by tho execute e coiincil, and Leo was present then. Ihn witness gave evidence in corroboration of what, the previous witness had saw. To Mr. O'Regan: There were differences of opinion between witness and the plaintiff. It wns quite true that Leo had contested the. secretaryship ot the A.S.R.S. with the witness.. He was ot opinion that the forwarding of tho letter by Lee . was gross misconduct, but witness had nothing to do with the expulsion of Lee from the executive council. "Witness had no voice m the proceedings of the council and had no vote. This concluded the case for the defence After hearing counsel on the legal points His Honour reserved his decision