INDUSTRIAL UNION SUED

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 261, 25 March 1911, Page 5

INDUSTRIAL UNION SUED

HEAVY DAMAGES AWARDED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. i Wellington, Friday. Judgment was given by Mr. Justice Cooper to-day in an action brought by •Tames Flowers against the Wellington Wharf Laborers' Union. Plaintiff's grievance was that the union had unlawfully excluded him from membership, and he asked the court for (1) the issue of a mandamus commanding the defendant union to recognise him as a member, and (2) £175 damages. Plaintiff stated that while a membei of the union the latter, through its officers, notified employers of wharf labor on the wharf that he had ceased to be a member, and had become ineligibk for employment on the wharf except in breach of the preference clause in the union's award. The defence of" the union was that Flowers was in arrears with his subscriptions to the extent of £1 12s Od, and a summons was actually issued for this amount, but the.case was withdrawn, counsel having advised the union that the defaulting member had to be struck off the bonks in accordance with statute when twelve months in arrears. The union accordingly offered to re admit Flowers on payment of 12s arrears.

Plaintiff denied being in arrears at all. and fruitlessly sought from (lie :. .ion a detailed statement how his arrears had lieen made up. Tie was a member of the union in lflOfl before preference was granted, but dropped nut and was in default with his payment of subscriptions in lflOS when preference was granted. He oalled at the office of the union, tendered 3s (id, and said he. wished to be placed on the books. It was proved that the union in its returns to the Labor Department in lflflfl had included him as a member, but nevertheless the defence, set up thai the .Is (id referred to was only part payment in liquidation of arrears. After (he notice to the employers, Flowers tendered 5s fld to the union (without prejudice to his right that he was still a member) for readmis'sion> and three months' contributions, but it was reinsert. The court held that all the circumstances went to show that the union had regarded him as a member, and had issued the notice to employers with a mistaken idea of the legal position. Flowers was, the court held, still a member of the union, which was ordered to enrol him as a member and to pay £SO dn mages for the loss of employment suffered by plaintiff.