PAYMENTS TO OFFICERS OF LABOUR UNIONS

Otago Witness, Issue 2894, 25 August 1909, Page 12

PAYMENTS TO OFFICERS OF LABOUR UNION S

AN INTERESTING CASE

A case of considerable interest to unions and their officers was heard at the sitting of the Magistrate's Court at Kaitangata on Thursday, before Mr Kenrick, S.M. Alfred Weston, coal miner, sued the Otago Miners' Union for £17 18s Bd, being the balance owing on a sum of i>39 18s Bd, which he claimed was owing for services rendered as a member of the Executive Council, as the president of the union, and as a miners' representative attending conferences, etc. Air Grigor appeared for the plaintiif, and Mr A. R. Barclay for the union. It appeared that the practice had been to pay the president £10 a year, each member of the Executive Committee £5 a yeaj.", and to allow 'to the miners' representatives attending the Arbitration Court or any outside meeting or conference a sum of 10s a day for wages, 10s a day for expenses, and in addition train fares and other travelling fares. These amounts it was given in evidence, had usuully and regularly been paid. Mr Grigor said that he did not claim in reapeet of any express contract, but in the ordinary way for services rendered, for which it had been the practice and the custom to pay. and the amount of which had been fixed by a resolution passed at a general conference of delegates from all the various branches of the union held in Dunedm. This conference, he said, had fixed the amount, and consequently any miner performing the services had a claim against the union for payment, and could recover. Mr Barclay argued that the amounts which it- had been customary to pay were merely in the nature of gratuities, that any lesolution passed by the conference referred to could not bind the union, that the members bt the executive had no power to vote these moneys to themselves, that there was no power under the rules for the executive to make such payments, that the members of the executive were in the position of agents — their position being analagous to that of directors- of a company, who had no power to vote themselves remuneration for their services, — and also that after July 18, ISOB, the executive had no legal standing, and was practically out of office. In the course of the evidence it appeared that the annual meeting of the union, according to the rules, should have been held on July 18, 1908, but that at a meeting of miners held at Kaitangata it had been resolved to postpone the annual meeting until the Arbitration Court sittings and certain conferences that were pending should be over, and until a balance sheet, which was nof ready, was prepared. Accordingly, plaintiff anil his oownembers of the executive continued exercising the powers of the executive until the fire, which destroyed the union books and papeis on Ootobei V last, took place. Shortly after this a meeting of the miners was held, and a vote of no-confiflenr-e pas«ed in tha executive, whereupon plaintiff and his fellow members resigned. It also appeared that in July. 1907, the union had funds in the bank and cash irt hand to the amount of £234 16s Gd ; that ordinary subscriptions had been ' roll.^otfl amounting to somewheic about £450; that there had been a special levy , in July. August, and September, 1908, which was estimated to have produced about £150 — all of which money, amounting to £834 16s 6d, was gone, and in addition debts and liabilities to the extent of £300 or "-£4OO were owing, — making a total of sornewhero bctwoen £1100 and £1200, whereas the ordinary expenditure in any ordinary year, as shown by the union's balance sheets, was on an average something like £450. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that while he did not in any way suggest or think that it was the duty of the president to audit the accounts, still he thought that, when there was a suspicion or an inkling of danger, the president ought to have taken steps at once to have matters looked into. As. early as January or February, 1908, the president knew that thero was trouble about moneys which were due from some of the branches, and which moneys were reported not to have been received by the head office. He had himself gone to those Branches and been informed that the monoys had been sent to the head office. He drew up a report on the matter, but for five meetings did not submit it to tho members of the union. In that respect ho thoueht the president failed in his duty. In addition it appeared from the president's own evidence that be had on six different occasions taken part in breaking the rule which prescribed that all payments were to be made by cheque, because ho himself

had on those various occasions received cash in respect of amounts owing to himself for services rendered. The breaking of this important rule had led to the result that now, when the books were burned, it was almost inmossible to find exactly what the financial position of the union was. This would not have been so difficult if there had been a record in the bank's books of all moneys paid in or collected by the union and all moneys paid out by the union for claims of various kinds. In this respect also he thought the president was to blame. He was of opinion that, on tne evidence before him. no legal claim had been established by the president or memDe _ r . iJ , °* tfle executive to the payments which they claimed as officers. As to the claim for moneys due for wages, expenses, and fares for acting as miners' representative, most of these had be-en inounred after July 18, when the annual meeting should have teen held, and consequently the president s nd hie co-members were not, properly speaking, any longer officers of the union, mat being so, the expenses incurred and the wages claimed for were, strictly speak3 m .? aTTO t d without proper authorisation, and therefore. Gould not be recovered Judgment would be for the defendant th? t PP^ r fl ' 01 ?. this - de ™ion that in