I.—9a.

104

W. H. BENNETT.

In clause 44 it is proposed to force employers to post up copies of the various awards in their works. Well, you will readily understand that that is going to be a very awkward matter in connection with the building trade. Practically every job we have becomes a place where we should have to post up an award, and when you are working under eight, nine, or ten different awards this becomes a serious matter, and we are liable to be fined if we do not comply with the Act. We have no objection to the workers posting these awards up if they think fit, but we rather object to being obliged to do it ourselves. Clause 49 interests us also, probably more than other people. It provides that no one shall be bound apprentice after he reaches the age of twenty-one years. Well, our Carpenters' award at present provides that a lad who has worked any number of years less than those set down in the award as the term for which a lad shall serve to make himself a journeyman—if he has worked any number of years less than that number he must be bound for a term making up the necessary five or six years, as the case may be, to complete his time and make him a journeyman. I will give a case in point, which will perhaps explain my meaning better. Last year a young man came to me who had been working in a country district round about farmers' buildings, where the awards are practically taken no notice of, and he had worked some four years at the trade, and was a good rough carpenter. He came to Wellington at the desire of his friends, with the ostensible purpose of completing his knowledge of the trade and attending the local technical school; but he was unable to get work of the particular class he wanted— namely, shop-work—to make'him a competent man. As president of the local association, he sought my assistance, and after considering his case for some time, I wrote a letter and sent him to the local Carpenters' Union, and said what I proposed to do. My proposal was that this young fellow should bind himself to some local builder for twelve months to make himself perfect in the joinery branch of the business. After some little correspondence the Carpenters' Union agreed. They also agreed to the amount which he was to receive, and that young fellow bound himself to me. I was not seeking him. He came to me for assistance, and I was willing to help him. He bound himself to me for twelve months, and a portion of that agreement was to this effect: that I was to keep him in the shop and teach him the joinery branch of the business, but if I were to send him outside the shop I was to pay him a journeyman's rate of wages. 6. Do you mind giving me the name of that young man? —McKenzie. One thing, too, which made a break in his learning the business was that he went away with one of the contingents to South Africa. There are many cases like this—young fellows coming with their parents from England, and who have not finished their trade. If thrown upon the market there is a chance that they will become incompetent men, and we think provision should be made by which these young fellows can be made capable tradesmen. Clause 50, relating to permits: We heartily support the proposal that these should be granted by the Inspector. We think the Inspector is the proper person to make inquiries and to grant these permits. The unions practically object to grant any permits, and if they are sent on to the Chairman of the Conciliation Board there is a lot of trouble. He has not the time necessary to inquire into the merits of each case, and therefore, we think, the Inspectors are the proper persons to do so. George Thomas Booth examined. (No. 31.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —Manufacturer. 2. Where? —Christchurch. 3. Have you seen the Bill now under discussion?— Yes. After the minute manner in which Mr. Pryor and the other witnesses have dealt with the various points in the Bill, I think I had better make my remarks rather more general in character, and unless the Committee desire it, I will only refer to two or three special points. I would like to say, in the first place, that the feeling of the employers towards this proposed amendment Bill, so far as I have been able to ascertain it, is favourable. It is felt that the Bill bears evidence on its face of a sincere and earnest desire to deal fairly and justly with both the parties corieerned- —I should say all the parties, because the employers and employees are not the only parties. It is very pleasant to say this, because we have had occasion during past years to find fault with the labour legislation on the ground that it has been one-sided, and that there has not been sufficient attention paid to the various interests involved. This feeling, I think, is general amongst employers, and you will understand that if we criticize the Bill we do so in no captious spirit, but with a desire to be loyal to the Government and with every intention to assist it to carry its proposals through successfully. In respect to the Industrial Councils, these appear on their face to be exactly the right thing. They are, in fact, pretty much in line with the suggestions made by various employers' associations for some years past. If it is decided to carry these clauses into effect, with some of the amendments suggested, there seems to be not much reason to doubt that the Industrial Councils will be successful. The first amendment of importance is as to the appointment of Chairman. I am not sure that so many as four permanent Chairmen will be necessary to cover the whole work, but I do think it is very important that permanent Chairmen should be appointed, and that it should not be left to each Council arising out of each dispute to elect its own Chairman. With regard to the coming into effect of an award or recommendation of such Council pending appeal to the Arbitration Court, I strongly support what Mr. Pryor said, and I think I can give you good reasons for doing so. In the first place, I think the Industrial Council, if enacted, should be regarded as one of the steps in the direction of bringing the parties together by way of conciliation, and that nothing in the shape of compulsory rendering of awards by this Council should be allowed. Moreover, whether the Council takes the form set- out in the Bill or some other form, I think it is undesirable that any lower Court should have the power of giving a final award, even though it should endure only for a short time, because it is absolutely necessary that it should go to the higher Court for review even where the parties have got on to common ground before the lower tribunal.