THE UNION'S " BIBLE."

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 287, 28 August 1908, Page 8

THE UNION'S " BIBLE."

TRIBULATIONS OF EMPLOYERS. PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. " With regard to this employment book, that seems to'be tho Bible of the union"— said a respondent at the Arbitration Court yesterday. . From the statements of this and other witnesses it was made clear that the union's " Bible " is about as pleasing to some employers as the Koran to an ardent Crusader. The author of the Biblical comparison, Mr. W. Birch, was defending the Gas Company on a charge of committing a breach of the preference clause in the carpenters and joiner's award. He admitted that tho union's employment book had not been studied, with the object of discovering if any unionists were out of work. One reason given for tho omission was disfavour of the book as such. The office of the Carpenters and Joiners' Union, said Mr. Birch, was down a by-street, and the book itself was not fit to be handled. It was in a disreputable, state, tho leaves were coming out, it was signed, in all sorts of ways,,and employers did not care to go to such a place. ■ '

Searching for tho Book. Mr./W. H. Bennett, president of the Master Builders' Association, who was also a respondent, stated that on more than'one occasion he had had great difficult}' in finding the book. Ho asked if it was fair that employers should have to go to tho Trades Hall and climb a flight of stairs to see if unionists were out of work. On one occasion he had found'the hook covered over with papers and various litter, and on another occasion it was not to he found by visitors at all, but another book/precisely similar in appearance, was lying in its piaco. Mr. G. H. Lightfoot, secretary of tho Carpenters and Joiners' Union, stated that the book was always kept in the same place. If it was too much trouble for an employer to go and see it, ho could always ring him up and ask if men were out of work. Omission to give preference to unionists has resulted in an unusuallv large number of emplovers being brought before tho Arbitration Court this sitting, especially in the building trades. Tho explanation given is that for several months prior to March last the preference clause was hold in abeyance owing to tho scarcity of labour. During this period employers got into the habit of ongaging whatever workmen offered, 'without, inquiring whether they were unionists. When tho preference clause was made again operative they did not find it easy to get out of this loose way.

Easy to Err. Statement's made by defendants before the Court show plainly that the preference clause in any case is most distasteful to tho employers. Mr. Birch, in mitigation of tho offence of tho Gas Company, who had employed a non-unionist carpenter when unionists were available, stated that tho company's relations with its employees wero of tho friendliest kind, and it had not boon cited on such a charge before. The company employed between 200 and 300 men, and had to guard against breaches of eight or nino distinct awards. Tho different departments of employment were under separate foremen, who wero empowered to engago and discharge workmen; It was easy to seo that an error might be made by ono of those foremen. The company had been employing from ten to twelve carpenters for several months past. In this case tho foreman;had not known that the man was not a unionist. So many people came to the company to ask for work that it had not been usual to consult the union's book to see if labour was available. ■ Mr. Birch added that ho had always found the union secretaries genial and straightforward men to deal with, but' there were powers behind .'them which, in the caso of soma unions,.wero like the laws of tho Modes and Persians. Somo of the unions wero willing to accept what was reasonable, but the Carpenters' Union always required their pound of flesh to the utmost extent. Ho felt inclined to say that tho probability of fines going, to tho union's funds might be an incentive. Mr. Lightfoot objected to this suggestion. Mr. Birch: Then I withdraw that statement. Mr. S. Brown (employers' representative on tho Court): That inccntivo will last no longer. In tho course of further argument, Mr. Birch urged that whefe from 200 to 300 men were employed under eight or nine awards thero was somo possibility of making a slip. The. breach had occurred in March, and after hearing nothing about it for several months he did not think that ho should bo brought to Court to answer "an attack of this character—l was going to say persecution." A fino of £2 was imposed.