UNDER-RATE PERMITS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 578, 5 August 1909, Page 6

UNDER-RATE PERMITS.

THE'HUMANITARIAN POINT OF VIEW t' ■' ■ (By Telegraph-Press Association.) ■> . Auckland, August 4. ■ 0 At the Magistrate's Court to-day the Inb specter of Awards preceded against Murray J and Co., boot manufacturers, for a 'bread 8 of. the award, which expired last June, ir r employing an elderly man named Chitty at 1 uuder-rate wages, without a permit. The ■ case was heard by Mr. C. C. Kettle, SiM., J It appears that the man in question was 5 employed at welt-sewing for a'wage loss thar the, minimum, boing unable to earn thai wage. The question, was whether the employer had made' a formal application for a permit. »"'",,' Mr. Kettle, after hearing, the evidence, was of opinion that if there liad been any ap plication at all it was very informal. He expressed the opinion, however, that' the grant ing or withholding'of _ such permits ought not to be loft to the unions, but should,be, entrusted to an impartial tribunal, whicl should take evidence on the question anc " adjudicate accordingly. In giving judg- " ment for, the inspector, Mr. Kettle, said he 1 was not entirely satisfied that the sole motive of the. defendants in employing Chittj ' lyas a disinterested one, although ho had no doubt that formed an important part of their motive. There had been no. formal application to tho union for a permit, and there was irregularity in the proceedings adopted. At the same time, the unions must understand that they must consider applications for permits for undor-rate workmen from the humanitarian point of view. Ii they did not do this, the result would be that old men and others not capablo of earning the minimum wago would becomo derelicts, would be thrown on the public resources, and, would be supported from Wic fund which tho workers, themselves had contributed. Every application for a permit for under-rato workers must be fairly and impartially considered by the unions on .their merits,. and ho for. one sternly discountenanced any proceeding which would have the effect of preventing tho less capablo. workors from earning a living. So far as tho present case was concerned, he held that there had been a breach of the awafd. The circumstances wore not serious, and would be met by a penalty of 40s. and costs.