BUILDERS MAKE OBJECTION TO “MODEL CLAUSE.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18453, 2 May 1928, Page 10

BUILDERS MAKE OBJECTION TO “MODEL CLAUSE.”

COLLUSION POSSIBLE AGAINST INTEREST OF GENERAL PUBLIC.

The possibility of collusion occurring between employers and employees against the public interest was suggested at last night’s meeting of the Canterbury Master Builders’ Association when a proposal to add a clause to the Carpentering Apprenticeship Order was under discussion. The clause, which will come before the next meeting of the Apprenticeship Committee, in of a notice of motion by Mr E. C. Sutcliffe, secretary of the Canterbury Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, is as follows: “That, every employer desiring to employ an apprentice in any branch or branches of the trade shall, before engaging the proposed apprentice, make application in writing to the Apprenticeship Committee, and the committee shall either grant or refuse the apprentice, after inquiring into the facilities within the scope of the proposed employers’ business for teaching the apprentice the branch or branches of the trade.” ABSOLUTE POWER. Mr W. H. Winsor said there had been some discussion at a former meeting of the association regarding a similar clause in the Apprenticeship Order for another trade allied to the carpentering trade. The effect *of the clause would be to give the Apprenticeship Committee absolute power to prevent an apprentice from being taught a trade, whether there was the full number of apprentices for the trade or not. If half the members of the committee said that an employer did not have the facilities for training an apprentice he would not have the right to do so. The only way out was for the employer to appeal to the Arbitration Ccurt for special exemption. “With such a clause as this in an apprenticeship order it would be very easy for collusion to occur between the employers and the employees to the detriment of the public, by restraining boys from being taught a trade,” said Mr Winsor. “Take a trade that has only a few employers, say ten, and is entitled to train thirty apprentices. It might not be to the benefit of those employers to have any more apprentices trained, as they could argue that the fewer apprentices were trained the fewer employees could come up through the ranks of journeymen to become masters in the trade. They could say they had got a secure position, and there was no reason why they should ; endanger it. OTHER BRANCHES OF T£lE TRADE. “Just the same thing could happen in the carpentering trade if this clause were put through for the Carpenters’ Apprenticeship Order. Personally I prefer the clause out of every order, but 1 say that if it has got to be in one branch of the trade it should be in the others so that all would be put on the same footing. Why should we pay through the nose for one branch of our work, and give away the carpentering practically for nothing? Unless I am instructed by this meeting to oppose the clause I will agree to it, but I think we should make an attempt to have it eliminated from all the other apprenticeship orders.” Mr G. L. Bull said that to agree to the clause would be giving the Apprenticeship Committee too much power. Mr Winsor had put up the case that if it was good for one trade it was good for the other, but two wrongs did not make a right. A DANGEROUS CLAUSE. Mr J. W. Graham moved that the association’s representatives on the Apprenticeship Committee be instructed to vote against the adoption of the proposed clause. Whichever way they loked at it, he said, there would be no justice in putting the .clause in the order. The carpenters’ order was different from the other orders as it had a safeguard which stipulated that an employer must be in business for two years before he could take an apprentice. Mr Winsor had pointed out the objection to the clause because it would give the committee power absolutely to limit the number of apprentices to be trained. In his opinion the clause was a dangerous one. Mr N. Sail seconded the motion. Mr Bull said he was not in favour of tying the hands of the association’s representatives, and that was what the motion' would do. “Only in this matter,” said Mr Winsor. Mr Graham said that when it was a question of altering the order the association should have some say in it. Mr Winsor said he agreed with Mr Graham that the representatives should have definite instructions from the association regarding the matter. The question he was concerned about was whether the association was going to take any action in regard to that clause in other orders. The chairman: It is a very serious thing; when a thing has been done it can’t be undone easily. The motion was carried unanimously. ADDED TO TEN AWARDS. Mr Winsor then moved that the committee be instructed to go into the question of the steps to be taken with a view to having the clause eliminated from other apprenticeship orders in the building industry. Mr J. H. W. Francis seconded the motion. Mr Graham said the union was bound to take the clause to the Arbitration Court. The secretary of the union had made the statement that at the last sitting of the Court this “model clause” had been added to ten different awards. If the association's representative attended the Court and gave evidence he would be in a position to judge what chances there were of having the clause removed from the other orders. The chairman suggested that the matter might be referred to the Allied Building Trades’ Association. If the clause was wrong for the carpenters it was equally wrong for the other branches of the industry. The motion was carried.