COLLECTING OF UNION DUES

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 16, 14 October 1943, Page 6

COLLECTING OF UNION DUES

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, October 13. A claim for a penalty for an alleged breach of the northern boot operatives award heard by the Arbitration Court was described by counsel as the first ease of its kind and one which might go to the Court of Appeal. The breach which was alleged against defendant company, Dearslys Limited, was that during June and subsequently it unreasonably withheld consent for an authorized officer of the union to enter the company’s premises and there interview, workers. The matter in issue was the right of a union secretary to enter an employer's premises for the purpose of collecting union dues from members. Mr. N. V. Dyett, inspector of awards, appeared for the department and Mr. North for Dearslys Limited. Mr. Dyett submitted that the award authorized a union secretary, with the consent of the employer, to interview workers as long as this did not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business. The secretary of the Boot Operatives Union, Miss Stone, gave evidence that last February- the union decided she should visit each factory once a quarter to collect union dues. The only employer who took exception to this system was defendant. It was suggested that the workers should leave their cards and money in an ollice for the secretary, but the union did not agree to this. She had entered 37 other factories to collect dues without any objection being made. Some of defendant’s employees were in arrears to the union. Mr. North said the defendant company was always willing to admit union representatives to its factory for any purpose within the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The question was whether the clause in the award was within tho authority of the Act if it meant right of access for the purpose of collecting union dues. He submitted that the clause did not. give right of access to collect dues and further that, if it did, it was outside the jurisdiction of the Act. If a claim was made that the unions generally could collect members’ fees in business hours it was a matter of the first importance. The right of access given was only to interview workers “with intent to secure the effective operation of the award,” and that did not relate to domestic matters between the union and its members. The Court reserved its decision.