ADULT LEARNERS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 938, 12 February 1917, Page 8

ADULT LEARNERS.

QUESTION BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT. EMPLOYERS' APPLICATION REFUSED. The question of "adult learners," which has been in dispute between the Moulders' Union and the employers during the past year, was settled by the Arbitration Court this morning in the union's favour, the court deciding that the time was not opportune for complying with the request of the employers to be allowed to employ adult learners at 3/pcr day less than the award rate for journeymen, with an increase of 1/per day each year until the award rate is reached. It was asked that the clause should not opera!" until after the union had had seve days in which to find the experienced labour required, men employed under the clause to be regarded as casual labourers liable to be dismissed in the event of slackness of trade. The clause had twice been before the Conciliation Council, the union representatives agreeing to it in the first instance. The union, however, repudiated it, and filed a new case, Mr E. J. Howard said that the union was so strongly opposed to the clause and fell so keenly concerning it that it would certainly sooner withdraw the case than accept it. The clause proposed was not only detrimental to the welfare of the union, but also to the efficiency of the industry, inasmuch as it produced a class of journeymen who had not been through the prescribed period of apprenticeship.

His Honour remarked that the only question seemed to be one of principle. Mr F. Cooper, who appeared for the employers, said that the clause had been brought forward because of the increasing difficulty that was experienced in getting boys as apprentices. In 1901 the number of apprentices to the moulding industry in New Zealand was 130; in 1011 the number had fallen to GO. The boys would not go to the industry, and left it when they did. They said it was dirty. Some way out of the difficulty would have to be found. There was a shortage of labour, and this was the only apparent way out in the interests of the industry and of the community. About 5000 boys left school every year, and about 1100 went into factories and other occupations, but the balance could not be traced. What became of them he could not say. His Honour said that that was an extraordinary thing, and he could not understand it.

Continuing, Mr Cooper said he recognised that the union had principles, but as one who had helped to draft the clause under consideration it seemed to him to safeguard the union's position, inasmuch as it did not come into operation until the union had had an opportunity of supplying men. The employers did not claim that the men developed under the clause would be efficient

moulders, but he claimed that thejr would be efficient for the work they had to do. Mr Howard denied that the shortage of labour was as acute as Mr Cooper made out. It was unfair, too, that this question, which was one of principle, and which was opposed by the whole of organised labour, should be fought out in a case like this, where the union was a weak one.

Mr Cooper said that he wanted to make it clear that he would not come before the court with such an application on behalf of the engineering trade generally. The fact was that the condition of the moulding trade was abnormal. Mr Howard said that in regard to the shortage he would point out that men had actually been unable to get work, and moulders had had to take general labouring work. Another objection was that it would lead to over-specialisation of labour, and that was the idea behind the rlai.se. Mr Cooper gave a general denial to Mr Howard's statement. He would definitely say that for five years past no moulders had been unable to get work. The court, after deliberation, announced that it regarded the time as inopportune for the granting of the application. It was. of course, an invasion of well-established union rights. If the position altered and the shortage became more acute, the court might reconsider the position.