ENGINEERS’ AWARD

New Zealand Times, Volume XLI, Issue 9256, 25 January 1916, Page 2

ENGINEERS’ AWARD

AMENDMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS,

■ His Honour Mr Justice Stringer (president of the Arbitration Court) hied yesterday an amendment do the_ award of .tho Amalgamated Society of Engineers (Wellington .branch), .the othei parties-- to .the award being the Acetone Illuminating and Welding Co., uud others. The amended award provides (1) that the minimum wage of tho men engaged on stock catalogue work shall be Is 3d per hour, instead of is 4!<i per hour, as under ,the previous award; and (2) that the proportion of apprentices to journeymen shall not exceed two apprentices to every one journeyman. The award is to operate as from Thursday next. January 27th. In the memorandum to the award. His Honour states that, although no satisfactory definition of the work included in stock catalogue work was forthcoming, tho Court had. restored the provision in-the. old award that the minimum, rate of wage for general engineering work (Is 4id per hour) should not apply to that .class of work; but they hud. however, fixed the minimum rate of wage for this work at Is 3d- per hour, instead of leaving it as hitherto with, out any, minimum rate. ‘ . ' A DIFFERENCE AND A COMI’RO- - ~ . . MISB. With regard; to the apprentices’ clause, he ‘said,: the - Court were satisfied. irnm~tho. evidence that the proportion of one apprentice to every; • two journeymen, as fixed by tho original terms of the award, was too low and would operate-injuriously both to the employers and to those seeking to learn the trade* of engineering. Mr* McCul,ough (the: workers’, representative) thought that, an .increase of one apprentice to one journeyman would bo fair and reasonable; but Mr Duthie (the employers’ representative), on the other hand, thought 'that the old provision, whereby the number of apprentices was ■unlimited, should bo restored. Under ■these circumstances.. His Honour suggested by way of a compromise tho proportion contained in’-the amended award. To. this .Mr .Duthie finally agreed, , but Mr McCullough held to his opinion that that was too high a proportion and might lead to abuse. •

INSPECTION, AND EXAMINATION SUGGESTED.,

"Wo are all agreed,” added His Honour, ‘‘that it is desirable-that, some system of inspection should be instituted by which it could bo ascertained whether ,orr not- . apprentices, are - being properly taught in the workshops in which thev are employed,-in order that-in case 'it is found that employers have failed in the obligation imposed, by the award to properly teach their apprentices steps can be taken to enforce such obligation. We also think that it would be greatly to the advantage of both.-.employers and apprentices if some system of examination of apprentices could be established such as provided in the engineers’ award made in West Australia' in 1913. This would hare the effect of stimulating apprentices to-.make- themselves profi-cient-in -the. ..various stages of- their training, and would : also afford opportunities of discharging apprentices who, whether „ from lack of 'ability, or otherwise. proved unsuitable for tho industry. Wo think (said His Honour .in conclusion) that the employers and the representatives of the union might confer together on these questions, as from their knowledge of the 7 trade they aro much hotter qualified than the Court to set np some practicable system of inspection and examination. If no agreement can be arrived at, then these questions may come up-for'reconsidera-tion when a new award is applied for."