UNION FEES.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 14 May 1925, Page 7

UNION FEES.

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

At the Magistrate’s Court, Timaru, yesterday morning, the Magistrate (Mr E. D. Mosley) gave reserved judgment in the ease, Canterbury Builders and General Labourers’ Union v. J. Fitzgerald, tho claim being £1 6s, subscription owing by defendant as follows :

Rule 11, of the Union’s regulations, stated that members intending to go to employment not under the jurisdiction of the Union, should give due notice to the secretary; and if fn. ncial at the time of leaving, would obtain a clearance card. Rule 12 stated that persons retiring from membership could withdraw on giving three months’ notice in wj-iting to the secretary. Defendant had paid his dues to the end of 1923, and then forwarded his resignation. The letter was received by the secretary on October 8. Plaintiff contended that defendant could only retire in pursuance of rule 12, and that lie did not give three months written notice of Ins intention to do so. In consequence lie was liable to pay dues for 1924. It was stated, on behalf of defendant, that he was not engaged in any work coming under the jurisdiction of the Union, and under rule 11 he was entitled to his clearance. If rule 11 did not anply to him, and he gave the requisite three months notice required bv rule 12, and as he had paid previously all his dues to the end' of 1923. lie was entitled to withdraw from the Union. It was contended that the words “three months notice” meant throe lunar months. A notice dated October 6. 1923, received October S, was exactly three lunar months notice. It was clear that a “month” in law was a lunar month, or 28 da vs, unless otherwise expressed * According to commercial usage a. month meant a calendar month. He was satisfied that defendant spoke to the secretary of the Union in September, telling him of his intention to resign, and that the giving of the written notice confirmed the resignation. Such written noUce, was. in his opinion, a substantial compliance with the provisions of rule 12. He had the opportunity of inspecting the seed cleaning machine at which defendant worked, and ho was strong!v of the opinion that defendant did not come within the scone of the Gnntorhiivv AA’ool. Grain, Hide, and Manure Stores Employees’ Award. Nor did lie think that his work brought him within the jurisdiction of the Union. The work carried on bv defendant was of a highly technical nature and reouired a considerable amount of knowledge and skill. That fact -\v"s recognised bv the employer as dofendvit was a permanent salaried, em.nloven. He was, therefore. of the opinion that defendant was engaged in an employment not under the jurisdiction of plaintiff Union, and was therefore entitled to his clearance card ns provided in rule 11. Further, pint being financial, he gave the notice of withdrawal provided for in rule 12. Judgment was given for defendant with costs.