TWO VACANCIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 269, 13 November 1935, Page 8

TWO VACANCIES.

PLUMBERS' DISPUTE.

APPRENTICES COMMITTEE.

QUESTION OF APPOINTMENTS. A further echo of the development of rival employers' organisations in the plumbing industry was heard in the Arbitration Court this morning when separate applications were made by the organisations for the appointment of representatives to fill two vacancies on the Auckland Plumbers' Apprenticeship Committee. The Auckland Master' Plumbers' Industrial Union"• of' Employers (Mr. j ßarrowelough) sought the appointment of Messrs. H. G. Pinel and W. E. Anderson, and the more recently formed body, the Auckland Registered Plumbers' Society v(Mr. Tuck) of Messrs. A. P. Hartnoll and A. H. Battersby. Rival Organisations. ; Mr.' Barrowclough explained that the apprenticeship committee was appointed by agreement between the employers and employees before there was any application for registration by the other group of employers. One of the two men nominated-: to'fill two "vacancies oil the .cbipmiitee was Mr.. Anderson, secretary of the employers' union, and he submitted that while he \yas not an employer lie was qualified "uiider the Apprentices. Act to sit on the committee. Counsel suggested that the Court would require to take into consideration the number of apprentices that the two rival organisations were employing, or were likely to employ in arriving at its decision. He confidently anticipated that the comparison would largely favour the employers' union. He submitted . that the other organisation of employers was really in sympathy with the workers' union, and that the result of it having .any nominees on the committee would be that there would be. a majority on the committee representing the workers' interests. The object of the Act was to avoid sucli a position and to have equal representation of both employers and employees. In evidence, W. E. Anderson said there were 20 apprentices to the trade employed by his members, seventeen of whom were in the ■ district within 20 miles radius of the Auckland post office. It was possible that one or two of the contracts were not registered. Cross-examined by Mr. Tuck, witness indicated that in some trades there was a lot of trouble concerning apprentices, and employers would not take on apprentices , under the existing legislation. Distinctive Interest. Mr. Tuck maintained that the group of employers he represented was entitled to some representation, as it was a distinct body with a distinctive interest. Of c the three employers'' representatives on the committee it was only right and 'proper that two of them at ieast should lie registered plumbers. He submitted, further, that no executive officer of a body which was a constituent part of the Employers' Federation at the present time should be on the apprenticeship committee. It was quite obvious that the federation was opposed to the Act as it stood. The main purpose of the committee at the moment should be to administer the - Act as it stood and safeguard the interests of the apprentices under it. G. P. Grieve, district registrar of apprentices, said that there were 20 apprenticeship contracts current at the present time in the districts about Auckland. In one case the employer had gone out of business and in another the apprentice was in Waiuku. Of the remaining 13 apprentices eight were employed by members of the Employers' Association and four by members of the industrial union of employers. Decision was reserved.