PREFERENCE CLAUSE

Evening Post, Issue 59, 10 March 1924, Page 8

PREFERENCE CLAUSE

SUBJECT TO CLEAR CONDITIONS

OBLIGATION OF THE UNION

A further discussion Upon the question of preference to unionists, which the New Zealand ship-owners are seeking to have abolished in the new award ' for seamen, took place in the Arbitration Court this morning. . His Honour (Mr. Justice Frazer) said that' if preference was granted to the union it must be on the clear condition that the union was an open union, and that any man was entitled to admission on payment of his entrance fee. The only objection to a man's admission could be that he -was not of good character, or of sober habits. That must be judged by the ordinary standard of living of the seaman, notwithstanding whether lie had been engaged as free labour or whether he had taken part in viy activities hostile to the union in a time of crisis. .

Mr. Young : "Our policy is to get every man to our way of "thinking. If we can do that we will have no free labourers." '

Mr. B. L. Hammond (representative of the coastal shipping companies) : "It ■would be interesting to know what methods are used to bring them to your way of thinking." , His Honour : "If we grant preference we' want to have no misunderstanding about the conditions." The union was entitled to preference only so long as it admitted applicants who were sober and of good character. If, the union admitted a strike they would destroy their right to preference. If they said it was merely a crisis, however, they could retain preference.

Mr. Young said that Sir John Findlay, K.C., had-given an opinion on the union's preference clause to the • effect that employers were entitled to engage seamen whether they were members of the union or not. If a non-unionist failed to become a member within fourteen days of being engaged the employer might be called upon to dismiss him and take on other labour. The union had asked the Inspector of Awards to apply to the Arbitration Court for an interpretation, but he declined to do so. His Honour agreed that Sir John's opinion was quite sound, but if a man was chased around from one job to another every fourteen days the objects ol the award would be defeated. Mr. Young claimed that many such cases actually occurred. He went on to allude to alleged victimisation of men by the companies because they were members of the union.

His Honour pointed out that if the preference clause was in operation the union could prosecute for a breach Assuming that it was lawful owing to' the lapse of the preference clause for unionists and non-unionists to be employed together, if.there was .trouble between the unionists and the non-unionists, the T°? J C? uld nofc demand that the latter should be got rid;, of. . Mr. Smith denied that the companies were guilty of vicitimisation, but remarked that the discrimination clause was just as effective.