ALL SETTLED.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19147, 2 November 1927, Page 14

ALL SETTLED.

| SEVEN NEW AWARDS. 'arbitration court sitting. "Seven applications for awards, and all have resulted in a complete recommendation.. That is very satisfactory," said Mr Justice Frazer yesterday morning at the Arbitration Court sitting, when one unior secretary after another had announced that a complete agreement had been reached without recourse to the Court. "That means,'' said his Honour, "that there have seven disputes for this district, and every one has been settled. It just leads one to wonder whether, with, no Arbitration Court behind, so many agreements would have been arrived at."

All of the industrial disputes on the list were settled. They. were as follows: —Power Boards' linesmen (country districts); bacon' workersV glue workers : Christ-church:' journalists; paper-bag, carton, and. box-makers; Tiyttelton ships' tally clerks; and ■ City Council drivers. The dispute with the last-named had 'been settled by agrearaent between , (he parties, without a hearing at the Conciliation Council. Parties were added to the following awards: —North Canterbury Buil iers', Contractors', and General Labourers', Christchurch Pumice Goods Makers', Dominion Motor and Horse Drivers',' Private Hotels and Storemen's and Packers'. The claim for penalty for 'alleged breach of award brought by the Inspector of Awards against J. Carter and Sons, Ltd., was set down for tomorrow at 10 am.; and that against W. H. Manttan for 2.15 p.m. to-mor-row. The compensation claim of Reginald Davis against Tw.entyman Hodgson and another will be heard at 10 a.m. on Friday. The hearing of the application to add parties to the threshing mill employees' award was set down for Saturday, at 9.30 a.m. Mr W. Cecil Prime appeared for the employers, and Mr C. E. Baldwin for the New Zealand Workers' Union. The Plumbers' Apprenticeship Order was amended in terms of the application.

Training of Apprentices. _H. T. Mahon appealed against the decision of the Engineering Apprentices' Committee, which had refused his application for permission to employ..an apprentice on the s ground that he "did not have sufficient facilities to train the lad properly. Appellant said he had had sufficient work to keep the apprentice constantly employed for the past twelve months. His business was the repairing of electric equipment, etc. He waß a contractor, and had a workshop, drilling machine, and other requisites and all wiring equipment, also' current. for testing. When he had written to the committee he had mentioned, that he was prepared to spend any reasonable sum to bring his equipment; up to the. standard required by. the committee, but he had received no reply. He had- been able to devote seven hours daily to his work, and thus.to the. training of the apprentice. Mahon said -he. had been before the committee on two occasions., Mr C. S. Thompson (alternative chair-' man), and Mr S. E. McGregor (secretary.) for the committee. The former explained the. reluctance of the committee to authorise the employment of apprentices in trades such as that in which the .appellant was engaged. Some of the employers. went bankrupt, he said, and boys were thrown out of work. The committee had received a letter from Mahon stating that his business did not warrant-the-employment journeyman. Under the new order a journeyman must be employed before an apprentice could ,be engaged. An hour a day was insufficient time for Mahon to do his canvassing. Mr W. Scott (employers' assessor) ■said the Court did not'likc; to sec boys' stranded altogether.

• After conferring with Sir Thompson the judge said the primary object of the Act was to ensure that the apprentice should receive t£ie thorough training necessary. It was essential that' tlie employer should have sufficient time to devote to the apprentice's training, and should have sufficient equipment. The Court left it to the Apprentices' Committee to transfer the boy. when a, vacancy occurred. In the meantime, if appellant employed a journeyman and could assure the committee that he could get sufficient work for the boy and obtain sufficient equipment lie could, keep him. The Court upheld the committee, and always did so when it had not been unreasonable and when it had acted on some definite principle. In this case it had not; shown any' personal discrimination. Tho Court's.-record- was -that the appeal had."-been:, dismissed, but Mahon could continue' To"employ the apprentice on the conditions stated.