AN OMITTED CLAUSE

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 86, 10 April 1924, Page 6

AN OMITTED CLAUSE

IN CARPENTERS' AWARD

"AMUSING BUT SOMEWHAT OF-

FENSIVE" REMARKS.

The omission of the under-rate workers clause in the carpenters' award led to an application before the Arbitration Court this morning, when the employers, represented by. Mr. W. A. W. Grenfell applied to have the award amended by the insertion of the clause. - The workers, represented by Mr. E. C. Sutcliffe, objected.: i Mr. Gfrenfell, in explaining the position, stated that the clause was not con-, sidered by the Conciliation Council, which sat late at night and overlooked the clause. The clause was not included in the recommendations, and the award appeared . without the clause. He argued that the clause was a necessity, enabling the employment of aged and partiallydisabled men, who could not be employed at other than a wage, under the minimum ' for journeymen. _ . Mr.- Sutciiffe ■ replied at considerable length, with numerous quotations from •well-known writers, and. with tho use of several popular sayings.,. At one stage he remarked: "Quite recently there was bdrn into the industrial life of the Dominion a new. child—the Apprentices' Act. The date of its birth was somewhat unfortunate,..being Ist April, All Fools' Day, We hope.that the meaning of this day will..notjbe reflected'upon its growth and upon its i'uture usefulness. With the coming of this legitimate offspring, the nose of the other interloper—the nn-der-rate clause—in the family is out- of joint. Ho never was a very popular 'kid,' anyhow, although his growth has been sturdy. We welcorhe the advent of ttie apprentice 'kid' with all the warm feelings of the Sentimental Bloke at the birth of Doreenjs first boy. But, if this infant life is to be associated with the 'under-paid kid' his usefulness will, be blasted.".- Mr. Sutcliffe spoke at considerable length in this strain, and said the workers appeared not only lo safeguard the interests \of their present membership, but also, they wished to display a larger vision and to prepare a way for the -tradesman of the.future, so that he would have an opportunity of learning his trade without having, to compete during apprenticeship with the under-paid man.' He suggested that the employers desired provision in the award enabling them to gain a supply- of cheap, labour withput the restrictions' and responsibilities of apprenticeship. Mr. Grenfell said he did not intend to reply to Mr. Sutcliffe's amusing, if not entertaining, remarks. Mr ; _ Scott (member of. the Court): "Amusing' and somewhat offensive." Mr. Justice Frazer said a lot of time had been spent over a simple application. The clause usually went into the award as a matter of course. It was omitted from the references by the Conciliation Council, and lie supposed everyone assumed the clause would be in the award. They had all been more concerned with the disputed clauses, and the under-rate clause had been missed by them, all. Mr: Sutcliffe suggested that it was not a defect, but he apparently did not grasp the meaning of "defect" A defect occurred if the Court omitted something it meant to insert, or should have inserted, or if something was inserted that was not meant. In this case the omission had been through inadvertence. Air. Sutcliffe. suggested that tho Apprentices Act was threatened. He (his Honour) did not think it was. , The Act relieved the position to a considerable extent, because if a man came along who had some knowledge and wanted to bo apprenticed then the person who was applied to for a permit could say, "Well, you are a man to be apprenticed under the clauses of .the new Act. In a-year you will probably, be a competent man." The Apprentices Act. assisted the position by enabling an alternative for a certain class of worker. Mr. Sutcliffe's fears could be met by proper inquiries by the Labour Department official issumg the permit. ' ■ The application1 was : granted.