May land and Molesworth v. the Miners’ Union.

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 3, Issue 6, 3 July 1914, Page 3

May land and Molesworth v. the Miners’ Union.

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS. On Friday last Mr E. Rawson, j S.M., gave his decision in the cases of Mayland and Molesworth who sued the officials of j Taupiri Miners’ Union, tor damages on account of their dismissal from the Union, the loss of work entailed thereby, and the loss of the rights and privileges ancl membership. The decision in the former case has evidently gone astray in transit, but we give Mr Rawson s decision in Molesworth’s action: “Dr Bam ford admits that if in January last the plaintiff became a menber of the Taupiri Union he has a good cause of action against the defendants for snob damage as he has sustained. “The question I have to determine then is (1) Whether the plaintiff did so become a member and (2) If he did become a mem her what damages he is entitled to. The question of membership is a difficult one as the rules are very vague as to what constitutes membership. After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did so become a member. “ It was admitted by Dr. Bamford in argument that the plaintiff was eligible under rule j 2 for membership but he argued j that payment of the half crown entrance fee was a condition precedent under rule 6 to becoming a member. It will he noticed however that the third cl-use provided that the member who does not pay his contributions fines or levies shall be considered to be in arrears but yet evidently remains a. member. This clause does not in terms refer to the entrance fee but the entrance fee and the first fortnightly , contribution are put on the same footing in that they are to he paid on joining the Union, but apart from this the Rule does not say the payment of those sums is a condition precedent but only j that each member shall pay them. He has to join the Union before he can be called upon to pay. If he does not pay he may be expelled or suspended under rule 27 B and is also subject to certain disabilities under rule 6. ! It seems to me there is a cor- i tain analogy between the rules relating to clubs and trades I unions (Read Wertheimer’s Law j relating to clubs pages 11, 12, j and 14.) Dr Bamford asks what visible ! sign is there tha! the plaintiff was ad mitt d a n mbsr. In an- ; swer to this I may point out j there is the application for | membership e:i lorsed " passed ” j by the committee and there is a j • ticket authorising tha plaintift ! to go to work. The defendants j themselves p.iib'y attempt to j justifiy their ; crion in procuring ! ; the dismis ml of the plaintiff by j j saying that the letter should j have stated that the plaintiff was | i not a member ancl not that he j was expelled and that they were j entitled to say that he was not j I a member because he did not go j | to work on the date on his ticket j | and that he had therefore 1 : I.brought himself under the j 1 provisions of the resolution ci j * the 27tii December. In my : opinion however this resolution so j far as it purported to take the j ’ status of the plaintiff as a mem- j v her is void. It is an attempt to j alter the rules in a way not | i sanctioned by the rule s them- 1 j. selves. Th. 9 rules can only be ' j altered or added to in the way laid down in rule 30. If he was 5 a member he did not in my opinion cease to be so because of J this resolution. c j “ But I think the circumstances ( _ show that lie was admitted as a member. The best evidence no e doubt would be a certificate attached to the rules referred to in rule 6 but it was seated by Mr ( j Gould and the statement was not challenged that the rules were not printed at the time of the e plaintiffs dismissal and so this e evidence could not be produced. e “There is no reason why credit , e should not be given for the en- •_ trance fee and contributions lt as it is admitted has been done with regard to others whom -j the execut i ve regard as i 4 McKay said in his evidence that jj it was usual to give until the first m pay day for pay men t <> f cn 1 raii ce , e fees and dues. Jf it was a n j j condition of the admission of an j v I applicant that he should go to w r ork on the date on his ticket and m the executive had power to make ss such a condition which is doubtq\ fill I am not satisfied that the R defendant was so informed or , e if he was it is evident from (he e ’ circumstances of the case that n the information was not conic veyed to him in such a way that he understood it. The P( | plaintiff did at any rate presenl his ticket to the mine managei j ie and was told to wait until Ralph’s nc l mine opened. When that mine ■ ej . opened he applied for wort again and got it. I cannot under ei . stand why under these circurn stances when the plaintiff hac I been several days at work anc on | thus shown his bona tides tin n( ] ! defendants should take upoi r uf j themselves to procure his dis ’ a _ missal. To say that it wa a j. necessary for the sake of dis | cipline and example seem 17 s i rather far fetched. | “ Now Stewart who was score | tary at the time of the plaintiff* J application for admission say c y s j he’ regarded the pence card a Qw I a certificate of admission an s [ that, ho did not consider anyon { a member until ins duos wer ; paid and that he did not pu :e ’’ | him on the register until then nc ud, j would he get a pence card tint he dues were paid and yet late > ho says that some were er

| tered on the register who h?d not pence cards and some were at | work and treated as members I though they had not paid their j duos hut they were treated as j unfinancial. ; The executive apparently had | authority to admit applicants if satisfied of their eligibility. ! There is no doubt they considered ; the plaintiff was a member they intended to admit him and did admit him and thought that the resolution of the 27th December would protect what they considered the Union’s interests. But as I hold the resolution as to a member ceasing to be such if he did not go to work on the date mentioned in this ticket is void, he ha ving been admitted as a member remained such. They made a contract with him. lie made application for admission. They accepted his application. They did not make it clear to him that unless he commenced work on the date on his ticket he would not be a member. They had in any case no power to impose such a condition and they did not demand prepayment of the entrance and fortnightly subscriptions. As Dr. Bamford admits that if the plaintiff was a member he is entitled to such damages as lie has suffered I need not go further in view of my finding, but 1 may say that in so far as regards Stewart, the writer of j the letter, and Dixon who put I the Union’s seal on it are concerned, in my opinion, they are liable as having made a statement false in fact to the company which procured the dismissal of tire plaintiff. As to the damages I am not going to speculate as to what the company might or might not do in given circumstances. The fact remains that the plaintiff was dismissed at the instance of the defendant. I allow the sum of £SO, including the sum of £46 4s, being equivalent to twenty and a-half weeks (from the 22nd January, ; to the 15th June), at £2 8s per | per week. Judgment will be for the plain-. | tiff for £SO with costs.