UNION DUES

Hokitika Guardian, 2 September 1931, Page 3

UNION DUES

TIMBER WORKER SUED. DISCRJ MINATION DENTED. ie (Grey Star Report). i4 !- That discrimination had been showi s against certain members' of the West - land Timber Yards and Sawmills In - dustrial Union of Workers by tin tj secretary-treasurer, Frederick' Lovel i- Turley, because they opposed his re t election, was denied by that official, it the course of evidence given by Ufa - before Mr W. Meld rum, S.M., in tin ; Greyrnouth Court, on Tuesday. The - case was one in which the Union prot ceeded against W. Fairhall, sawmill - employee, of Ross, claiming £1 6s. 3 being Union dues up to December 31, 1 1931, payable half-yearly in advance; - also ss, the amount of the fine duly - levied on the defendant by the Union, > in accordance with its rules, on July - 25. 1931, for non payment of dues. The total claim was thus £1 11s. Mr ‘ T. F. Brosnan representing the Union, - and M,r J. W. Hannan defended the ; case on behalf of Fairhall. There were several similar o*r:es set down for hearing, hut Mr Hannan stated that he had arranged with Mr Brosnan, that the case of Fairhall should be taken as a test. Frederick Lovell Turley, secretarytreasurer of the Union, stated that the subscription was fixed by Rule 4, at 2(5s per half-year, payable in advance. Fairhall had paid his dues to June 30, 1931, but not for the current half-year. Tie had definitely refused to pay them. A resolution regarding subscriptions I was passed by the executive of the Union, giving instructions to sue for Unpaid subscriptions, in addition to the fine of os. That resolution was passed on July 25. Subscriptions be-came-payable on January 1 and July 1 each year. They, were payable in advance on tbo.se dates. At the meeting which passed the resolution, the commitfee also fixed the fine, in accordance with the rules, because nonpayment oil July 1 constituted a breach of the rules. Witness produced the special receipt-book, made j necessary by the Amendment Act, 1922. , The receipt showed the period for which a subscription was paid, and the date on which it was paid. Every member knew for what period lie had paid his suhscn'ption, and every memj her knew when his subscription was | due.. Fairhall was given a receipt for tlie period ended June 30. He paid , the delegate at Ross, and got a receipt in the ordinary course. An amendment : to tlie Union rules, made in 1930, provided for an increase in the.half-yehrly I subscription from 20s to 2Gs. All the requirements mf the rules were carried* out. a)id the .necessary procedure was 1 gone through. Everything was legally J in order. " r T I Mr Hannan : Who gave the notice ' asking for an amendment of the'rules? | .The minute-hook was produced b| r witness, "'ho said that the amendment was asked for by Steve Brand. Notice was given in March, 1930, and a special meeting was held on July 26. It took about three months to get the amendment passed by the Government Registrar, Mr Newton. An executive meeting was held on July 25, and some bunflreds of members were fined on that date. Mr Hannan.; Was every man who was in arrears with the Union on that particular date fined.?—Every man whose name was provided to the executive. There were some hundreds of them fined. You were rather in a hurry to fine them, were you not?—When yon liave large obligations to* meet, such as we have with the Hospital Board, Mr Hannan—“l have heard something about that,” said Mr Hannan, smilingly. Witness commented on the fact tnat tlie Hospital Board wanted payment from .the Union, but when the Union tried to g t its subscriptions paid, it was opposed. Mr Hanr -am : For what reason were the. annual subscriptions increased?— To pay the. necessary obligations of the Union. I .think that last year, according to

your, balance-sheet, the total income of the Union wad'£26oo? Witness replied-that he thought the total was £2200, but was not sui'e. If £2600 was • in the balance-sheet it must be right, but .Mr Hannan might have got the -wroijg balance-sheet. “According to the balance-sheet,” said Mr Hannan, “the Hospital Board received £1000.” ; j '. Mr Brosnan intervened, to remark that the statements about the Hospital Board were quite irrelevant. COST OF THE UNION. Mr Hannan pointed out that Mr Turley was the first to mention the Hospital .Board. The Hospital Board received £IOOO, ami it cost another £I6OO to f)in the Union. ' Mi* Turley Apparently so, [''according to the balance-sheet Continuing, witness said that Fairhall and nine other men on the job at Ross refused to pay, but all the others paid in the usual wav. The objectors told him personally that they would not pay. Fairhall did not tell him that he was short of money at the time, and did not- offer him 10s on account. If Fairhall had made that offer, it would have been accepted on account. Some of the men wanted to pay 10s, instead of the full amount. Nine men on that particular job were sued, and about thirty others had been sued recently. The nien had linen given, every opportunity to pay.

l Mr Hannan: The only men be in; • sued, I understand, are those !who <*r opposed to you on tlie Union ? “That is too silly to listen to, M Hannan,” replied witness. “It is ah surd!” v * , Has every man in arrears on July ' been fined, or not?—No. Why some and not others?— The rules provide that the names mils lie given to the executive at a meet ing. Tlie men located between Itos; and Hokitka were fined first. You admit that only some of those in arrears were fined? Mr Brosnan: It is quite probable that you will fine the’others? Witness stated that they would probably he fined at the next executive meeting. Although the fine was put on, he added, it was remitted very often if members paid promptly. Nli* Hannan: Was notice given to these individual men, before they were lined ?—Notice was sent, to the. whole of the mills by circular, about two months previously. Thousands of circulars were printed and sent out. The men were given plenty of notice that the dues were payable on July 1, and that they would be fined if payment was not made. j They v<(re warned two months before the subscriptions became due, that .they would be finfcd if they were not I paid? '■ Witness replied that a similar procedure was adopted by Friendly So- ; pieties. All the Union members knew the rules and. tlie custom had been .operating for years. j ; Asked when a resolution was passed, fixing the due date for payment, I'he =said went back over a period of thirteen years,, and he could not produce the resolution right away. He did not knovy until this morning that a defence would he put up on behalf of Fairhall. This closed the case for the Union. Mr Hannan said that he did not propose to call evidence. The defence was put in really for the purpose of testing the question of a fine. He was satisfied that the rules had been projierly amended, and that the Union had power to collect- a fee of £l. 6s per half-year from each member. He eontehded, however, that there .was no power to fine the men. He quoted Rule 23, with reference to purging the roll, which provided that any members in arrears .for thirteen weeks might be fined a sum not exceeding IQs at the discretion, of the committee. The fines were imposed on July 25, only three weeks after ,the subscinptidms were due. Rule, .4 did not fix ar date for payment, hut said that the dues should be payable half-yearly. He quite believed that the Union had at some period fixed a date for payment. However, it was less than three weeks after the due date that the committee fined the men, and that was put in. Tbe men were quite satisfied that those fined were those who oR-'i posed the secretary at the last annual meeting. Mr Brosnan stated that there was a peculiarity about the subscriptions, in that they were payable in advance. It might mean that, on July 2, a member was six months in arrears. The S.M. pointed out that Fairhall had paid up- to June 30, and tbe next subscription fell due on July 1. On July 2, therefore, he was in. arrears for one day. Mr Brosnan: Being payable in advance, the effect is that he is six months in arrears.” Mr Brosnan admitted that his contention on the point was not convincing. He called attention to Rule 19, dealing with breaches of the rules, which provided that any member fined had the right of appeal. That was a discretionary -rule, and a fine, f could quite well he imposed under it. T-he S.M.: Yes, but there is a' definite rule with regard to arrears of subscriptions. Mr Brosnan said that he was hound to admit that. He submitted that the rules were * not legally drafted, and had been copied to some extent Lorn other rules. There was no doubt, said the S.M.. that there was a definite rule regarding subscriptions. Mr Hannan pointed out that the resolution passed by the executive dealt with the matter. • Tbfi S-.M. gave judgment for the Union, for £1 6s. with Court costs 10s. the claim for tho 5s fine being disallowed. The other cases were struck out, by agreement between counsel.