PREFERENCE CLAUSE

Hokitika Guardian, 26 March 1930, Page 6

PREFERENCE CLAUSE

BEFORE APPEAL COURT

fßy Telegraph, Per Press Association.^

WELLINGTON, March 25

In preference to unionists’ case before the Appeal Court, Mr Justice Herdnuin observed that clause 24 (c) limited the rights of employers to engage non-unionists. They could oiilj engage non-unionists on condition tliat they joined the union. Air Stevenson said that it would he contended that three of the sub-clauses of Clause 24 regarding financial membership were unfair and ultra vires, because they virtually gave preference within the union. As far as Clause 24 (g) was concerned, counsel said lie did not know whether the Executive proposed to make men walk the plank or shoot them, or what form the punishment might take. The award purported to give the Executive the right- to punish as it might decide.

Air Ongley: “I don’t attempt to support it.” The Chief Justice: “Obviously, you can’t support it. You might as well set up a Star Chamber.” Air Ongley said that he would admit Clause 24 (g) was had.

Another point raised during the course of the argument was that one of the sub-clauses .imposed upon tho employeers the duty of ascertaining,' before unionists were engaged, whether they were financial members or not. It was also alleged that Clause 24 (c) imposed compulsory membership of the union upon workers. Mr Stevenson continued that the Court had no jurisdiction to include in its award provisions ,giving 'preference to financial members as against lion-financial members of the union, for that cast upon tho employers the onus of satisfying themselves tliat every man they sought to employ was financial in the union to which ho belonged. This would necessitate consulting the books of a union itself. No jurisdiction to give such preference could be found in the Act. Further the question of whether a man was a financial or ail unfinancial member ol the union was a domestic matter between the member of the union and union itself, and, as such, was not an industrial question within the meaning of the Act. Tbe Court had no jurisdiction to give preference to one class of unionist over another class. He submitted also that the provision that tbe, employers could engage non-unionists solely upon their joining the union amounted to compulsory unionism, which repeatedly had been held to be contrary to New Zealand legislation. The Court reserved its decision.