Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PREFERENCE CLAUSE

POSITION OF YOUTHS INTERPRETATION BY COURT ' AN IMPORTANT POINT An important interpretation of the preference to unionists clause in the Drivers' Dominion award has been filed by the Arbitration Court in ‘ answer 'to the question-“Is an employer bound to dismiss from his service a youth (a non-unionist) when requested to £0 so by the union, provided there is then a member of the union (either youth or adult) qualified to' perform the particular work required to be done, and ready and willing to undertake the same?" The opinion of,the court, delivered by His Honour, Mr Justice Frazer, is as follows:—“The preference clause applies to ‘any worker/ and makes no distinction between youths and adults. The Act includes persons of any age in the description of ‘worker/ and does not restrict workers under twen-ty-one years of age from becoming members of industrial unions. Accordingly the preference clause applies to youths as well as adults. The dismissal of a non-unionist youth in favour of a unionist adult cannot, however, -be enforced, nor can the dismissal of a non-unionist adult in favour of a unionist youth be enforced. The preference clause must he read as requiring the substitution of a worker of ‘equivalent status. With this qualfication, the question is answered in thte affirmative/' The court desires to make it clear that this opinion does not affect apprentices. They are dealt with under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1923, and the existence of a.binding contract, with a fixed term of currency, renders it impossible for the provisions of the preference clause of an award to affect them in any way. Action taken by Coutts and Macdonald, wqod and coal merchants, of Gisborne, was the cause of the union's objection. A stepson of a member of the firm, aged 18. was asked to join the union, hut. refused. J-he union then lodged a complaint that the youth had carried parcels {benzine cases weighing 7olb) exceeding <olb in weight, in contravention of the award. The stepfather consulted his partner, and agreed to pay the lad wagesat the rate of an adult, the firm contending that the preference clause did not apply to youths, any more than to apprentices, and that the excess wages did not make the youth an The union placed the matter before the local Inspector of Awards, asking for the ruling of the court.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19260417.2.75

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12423, 17 April 1926, Page 5

Word Count
395

PREFERENCE CLAUSE New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12423, 17 April 1926, Page 5

PREFERENCE CLAUSE New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12423, 17 April 1926, Page 5