INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 556, 10 July 1909, Page 7

INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS.

DEPUTATION TO HON. J. A. MILLAR. DOUBTFUL KIND.OF PREFERENCE. MINISTER'S VIEWS ON APPRENTICESHIP. Sevoral important matters affecting. both workers and employers were brought under the notice of tho Hon.- J. A. Millur, Minister for Labour, by a deputation from,the Furniture Trader AVorkers' Union last night. Mr. Wilford, M.P., lin introducing the deputation, said that, under the law as it at present stood, whilst a unionist was deemed to be dismissed after, tea days' suspension, it seemed.that .there was no provision stating how long a non-unionist might be suspended without being deomed to be dismissed., It, thorcfore, followed that a union to wliich preference had been granted-might have a worker ready to go on to a job, and the employer might take on . a non-unionist who had been put off any length of time before. Though: preference was supposed to bo. given to unionists,' it might happen that the unionist wjould not got the preference. Tho union contended that all, Workers—both unionists and. non-uiiionists—should be placed on the same footing so far. as dismissal was concerned. V >■- : "a , ,

■ Mr. Moriarty, secretary of the .union;, instanced -a: case which Ti&d - recently " cropped up.. No provision relating to', when a, worW should 'bo deemed to be dismissed was contained in: tho 4904 Act. : Daring, tho,following year, .however, a special clause was introduced providing that a worker should be deemed to "bo ;dismisised when he had been susponded'for a longer period than ten'.dayslUnder<the Amending Act of 190S that clause had, been repealed. When the lnattor was brought before the ■ ex-Minister for' Labour they received no satisfaction. Upon a case being , then brought, the 'magistrate (errone-' ously he-thought) had''ruled against the union. ; What they desired was that the matter should * be set at, rest by "an amendment, to .the Act. -■.... ■ ■

Another member of. the deputation re- ' marked. that .he. knew a case where an. em- ;■ ployer had; informed a unionist that :ho , wanted- him to . take a holiday,, The worker was not, however, to put his name in 'the unemployment bonk, as he (tho employer) would send for. him when ho > wanted him; It was found, howevor, that tho work went ■ to a non-unionist/,no unionist being on the book. / - Mr. Wilford referred to a case—Slaughtermen's Union v. the Meat Export Company— where the defence raised; was that mbni who", .went to wore only suspended. ; . The Minister, in reply, said that the, question of when employment oeased was a very, important, one. -'. The Legislature evidently .intended, that the,employment of all workers' should termffate on ten' days' suspension. Clause 109 of the Act'.would not help' the: : union, as', the worker' in questioh ' had Inot boon dismissed for any of the reasons which, it enumerated. There, was-no doubt an ;anomaly wbich would have to'bo removed. As the law now' stoodj. aU "an. employer had to do in; the , case of non-unionists''was to suspend them instead of ' dismissing , them. He did not know whether there was any ; other"'section in the Act which applied in such , a caso. If there was not such a ,clauso, the Act' would have ; to be amended rto make it quite clear ..as :to 'when 'the: sus-! pensioii of a worker should be deemed to be dismissal; /It was ; - absolutely fair to all: parties that that should be, done. He would look into .the ■ question as to what - was a ; reasonable period of suspension! It was!very probable the Act would have to.bo';amended: "Personally," added' Mr. ''I do not intend to bring in many, amendments to the Act. ,When.an amendment is introduced;one, has/to. run the gauntlet ;'of, :the whole' concorri.r; '. ! .had , enough : of it last- session . to satisfy me for a long fame.', But thcro is a matter, which has to be remedied, tho 'soonor it is done, 'the better." , ■ . ; r . ; QUESTION OF,EMPLOYMENT BOOK. r NEW SYSTEM TO BE • INTRODUCED.' ' .: -Tho..next matter ■. brought up by Mr ,Moriarj;y... related v to the employment book. iHo stated that-'iH>a, recent caso nn inspector had .. sworn -that the' book .. which . was kept by tho. Labour; Department had- been, altered • :But.ho(Mj.; ; Moriarty) had' satisfied'! tho magistrate that,-if the book bad boen altered, tho .alteration. ; waS' against .the union. The i book ' was kept in suoh a position .that , atiyi body ; .could ; interfere with it without, being i observed bv 'tho Departmental officials. It i would., not nave been, so bad, but the official | in/.question.:was,rnot.:tho one. -that --had worked; up the case. What,, was desired was that suoh books should be'i kept under the counter, and. be given out for inspection only by officials. r The "Minister replied that'he intended" to alter the : present i system altogether. Anybody who.; wished to put his name down on the employment book would have to fill in tt form.showing howjonghc had been out of work, by whom he was last- employed, whether: ho, : was/single or ; married,- etc. , : Then thoso'. who had,, been longest out', of work and wore most deserving would get tho [first chance.' The present haphazard method was- no goodto .anybody, . Under the, present system one simply had to take a -man's statement ; and some men . were- not. very 'particular, as : to what they said. ■ He would got. the necessary forms printed, and then there would be a record ofVeveryvmanY.caso; for all time. No' honest man need be afraid to givo tho correct particulars. - If a "waster" tried •' to: work a! ''point" he would then .be easily: detected. He would /take good caro; that any book at the Labour Department! office, was . properly looked after. In caso they might be needed, he; had asked - two of the- inspectors to bo present. that evening. The officials to whom! reference had been mado had not -given "evidence voluntarily, > . Mr. Moriarty: I was told that either one inspector or another was prompting the other side. throughout 'the whole, of the case,'.'. Mr. Millar: T have always told tho Departmental ■ oflicials : that I : don't ' .want a case' brought unless: they-are satisfied that adistinct breaoh. of an -award- or Act has' taken placo. ' lhe inore cases tbey lose, the more they weaken 'their position. .If, they are doubtful about/any point,- they are to bring a test case.. I don't wjsli/them; to rush into Court every opportunity they get. They must" thoroughly investigate : a/case before 'taking action, and •if they are': satisfied that .the' broach'has. occurred involuntarily thoy should not proceed. : . There should' not-; be any-' thing in the naturo of persecution.

EMPLOYERS AND APPRENTICES.V ' ! DEFECTS IN PRESENT SYSTEM. : Mr., Moriarty also referred to. another important matter. Recently, be said, ,an application for an undor-rato permit came beioro tho magistrate / at 1 Palraerston North. It appeared/ ho alleged,: that during .the oourse of his apprenticeship tho youth in question had' .been sadly . neglected. He aisked the magistrate. to ' postpone ■ his decision to enable : anaction to be brought agains.t the employer for damages for allegedly failing to teach the lad. his trade properly. ' Tho magistrate had stated . that\ it :was not within his jurisdiction to: postpone/ the' matter. His duty was to find; whether tho lad was dawpetentj or " incompetent. Eventually he granted a pormit to! the youth. If lads • were, properly taught, tlio standard of wages .could bo kept up. ; Tho ebrt' of thing to which he. had referred amounted to a premium for. incompetency. ... * ! Mr. Millar, in reply, said that ,he did not know the term of the particular award in question. He should imagine, however, that the fact that the Jad had had to apply for n '.permit', to; work .at reduced rates, owing to incompetency, would strengthen his case for damages agaanst" his employer. :' Mr. Moriarty: I know of half a dozen caseß of tho land. ' . .

Mr. Millar went oil to' say that ho had always maintained that tho poriod of. apprenticeship d\ould be divided ,into, say, four termfl. !' During the . first term a lad was', worth Very' littlo; during the seoond he should' get 20'por cent, of a journeyman's wages; in the third year, 50 per cent, of tho wago for a journeyman,- ana- in _tho fourth year within 80 per cent, of what a journeyman received. When an employer had to pay his apprentices , at thoso rates' ho would tako fine caro to teach them properly. That was the best scheme that ho could'devise, and' that was the only way he saw to tolve tho prnhUm The power to adopt snob a nrhnmo

lay in -tho- hands of the Court at the present time. Whether it would act equitably in all trades was a question that would, have to bo considered. It might bo awkward to have a hard and fast rule, for what would suit one trado might not suit another trade. As was the case in older lands, specialisation was coming into vogue more and more every year in New Zealand. Even if a boy were kept at one branch ho should ho made expert in his trade. He ought to be able to hold his own upon the completion of his term of apprenticeship. Mr. Moriarty • What could be sued for, in a case such as I mentioned? Mr. Millar: I should say the difference between tho wages of a journeyman and the undor-rate amount which the young fellow has now to accept. Mr. Moriarty: Who could bring the caso? Mr. Millar: The boy's parents. 'Mr; Moriarty he has none! '..'/ Mr. V/ilford: Inere would be noi difficulty on ;that score. A guardian ; ad litem could be appointed. ' ' ' Mr. Moriarty.l don't think-wo could-get tho boy to take action.'