TO AVOID WORRY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 461, 20 March 1909, Page 4

TO AVOID WORRY.

EMPLOY NO NON-UNIONISTS. JUDGE SIM SPEAKS HIS MIND. INTERESTING ARGUMENT IN COURT. "Don't bother with non-unionists" was tlio advico which Mr. Judgo Sim tendered to employers somo days ago. Further discussion, on obligations imposed on employers and workers by tlio grant of preference to unionists took placo during tlio sitting of the Court of Arbitration yesterday. It happened that a builder was chargod with having employed two workers who were not members of the Carpenters' Union "when thoro wcro members of the union equally qualified to perform tho work, and ready and willing to undertake it." Tlio defence was that defendant had examined tho employment book but to tho best of his knowledge, nono of tho unemployed unionists wero as competent to porfonn tho work as tho non-unionist whom ho had engaged. How not to Inspect tho Employment Book. When dofendant was in tho witness-box, his Honour asked: "Did you not make inquiries as to' tho ability of tho workers whoso names appeared in the book?" , Defendant: No; as far as I know uono of them would do. His Honour: Well, you might just as well have taken a walk on to tho wharf as to examine tho book in the way you havo stated. Mr. Stobart (for the union): Did you sign tho employment book? Defendant: No. We have been advised never to sign it because, if on any occasion wo omit to do so, it might bo used in evidence against us. Mr. Grcnfoll gavo us that advice. Mr. Brown (the employers' representative) expressed the opinion that tho employment .book did not contain sufficient information regarding the unemployed workers. It was, ho said, not right to expect employers to run all round tho town making inquiries. Mr. Grenfell: Tho book should, I submit, state tho particular branch of trade in which an unemployed worker is specially competent. Tho Inspector of Awards: All that an employer is expected to do is to make reasonable inquiries. All an Employer Need Do. His Honour: That is tho point. It is clearly tho duty of an employer to make reasonable inquiry. Of course, if workers aro needed urgently, an employer would not be expected to go to so much pains. Subsequently Mr. Grenfell pointed out that in tlio present instanco tho names of 10 workers were on tho employment book. If defendant had had to mako inquiries as to the ability of cach, it would have inflicted much labour on him, as tbo men lived in different localities. Then, again, each of tlio men were described as "carpenter or joiner" or "joiner." • Especially would the caso have been ono of hardship seeing that a suitable worker was on hand. His Honour: Employers could avoid all worry over tho preference clauso, if they accepted the advico which, I tendered them on a previous occasion. When non-unionists seek employment from them what they should say is: "Probably there aro unionist out of work. I am not going to employ non-unionists. If you want employment, go and join tho union. That will save mo trouble—l won't havo to go before tho Court."

What If There Wero No Awards? Mr. Grenfell: In New Zealand and other countries there is a fair proportion of workers who don't require a union to maintain their rights. ■His Honour: Do you think a majority of the workers; Would: rather be' without a union and an award? . M . r ; Grenfell: I admit that tho workefs aro ■justified m combining for their own .interest- ... His Honour: What do you think tho result would bo if tho Court aud all tho awards wero wiped out of existence P Would tho employers continuo to pay tho wages now fubng? Or would thoj; not lower them? > Mr. Grenfell; I submit that a groat majorlty of tho employers would continue ■ . His Honour: Human natu'ro must bo very different in Wellington from what it is in the rest of tho world. You aro singularly fortunate, Mr. Grenfell. to live in a community whoro tho employers havo reached such a stage of perfection. Mi-. Grenfell. I congratulate you. Twenty Years Ago.' Wero Things Batter? Mr. Grenfell: I say this: Before tho Court or awards came into existence, workers and employers worked much moro amicably together, and workers used then to consider the employers' interests. aud their own identical' . His Honour: Will you tell me this: What wages wore paid to grocers' assistants before the award camo into foroo in 1902? Mr. Grenfell: I don't know. His Honour: Will you inquire? Mr, Grenfell: I am quite safe in saying that twenty years ago carpentors were got ting from 10s. per day. Mr. M'Cullough (the workers' representative) : You aro quite safo to say that; but it is not correct. Mr. Brown: Mr. Grenfell is talking about Wellington. My friend Mr. M'willougl does not perhaps know what happened hero 20 3;ears ago. lie may know something about Christchurch. Mr. Grenfell: Twenty years ago carpenters were getting 14s. per day. Wages do not do Mild on the combination of tho workers, but on the merit of tlio individual workers. I say again: It would bo a grievous hard' ship to compel employers to run about the country to inquire alter workers. My submission is that it is the workers who should seek the employers. Mr. Justice Chapman's Opinion Quoted. The Court (Mr. Brown dissenting) imposed a fine on the defendant. It stated that an important decision on the point raised had been given by Mr. Justice Chapman when ho was President of the Court. Replying to tho question as to who should bo tho judge as to whether unionists who were available wero equally qualified with non-unidnists offering to perform the particular work or service required by tho employer, his Honour had said: . "It cannot bo laid down that the employer is to bo tho solo judge, as a man is not usually considered qualified to bo judgo_ in his own cause: out we think that it ought to bo understood that tho omploycr must be considered as prima facie entitled to make the selection, and that he ShaH only be subjected to a penalty if it is shown that ho has not done so in good faith and on tho merits."

Exaot Position as to Preference. ■ Important observations as to tho dutiot of employers under the preference clause were subsequently made m the judgment. "An employer who is bound by a preference clause such as that now under consideration," it- was stated, "is not obliged to examine the employment book before engaging a non-unionist, but if ho engages such a worker without examining tho book ho takes on himself tho. onus of proving that the worker whom lie has engaged was bettor qualified for the particular work than any members of tho union who were out of work at tho time, and whose names'' were on tin employment book. If, oil tho other hand, he examines tlio employment' book, and with the information at his disposal exercises a bona fide ■judgment in tho matter and selects a non-unionist, tho omploymont of tho nonunionist, in tliesc circumstances, is not a breach of award." Views of Employers' Representative. During the courso of his dissenting juds mont, Mr. Brown held that there was insufficient information in the employment Iwok to enable employers to get workers without undue inconvenience. The fact- that a worker's name and address was in the book wa« not sufficient to secure a conviction. The book should contain much more information, othonviso no lino should bo imposed ou ©mplo.vora-