COURT DEFIED.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19149, 4 November 1927, Page 3

COURT DEFIED.

ENGINEERING FIRM FINED £lO. WELDING NOT A TRADE. W elding is not yet a complete trade in the Dominion. A firm of employers which adhered to its opinion that it was, and disregarded the decisions of the Engineering Apprenticeship Committee and the Arbitration Court, was fined £lO yesterday by the Court. The firm was James Carter and Sons, engineers, corner of St. Asaph and Montreal streets. It was sued by the Labour Department, which claimed £2O (maximum penalty £3O) on the following grounds:—(l) The defendant company did between Jul/ 30th, 1927. and August 12th, 1927, employ two youths named E. C. Hunter and P. A.*H. Davies at oxy-aeetylene welding work contrary to an order of the Canterbury. Engineering Trade Apprenticeship Committee dated May 11th, 1927; (2) the defendant company, being a party bound by the said award, did between July 30th, 1927, and August 12th, 1927, employ Hunter and Davies at oxyacetylene welding work, and failed to pay the said workers not less than the rates of wages specified in the award. Mr W. J. Wakeliu appeared for the Department.

The firm waa represented by Thomas M. Beadle (foreman), who gave evidence on its behalf. He said he would admit tho youths had been employed at oxy-acetylene welding. Mr Carter felt he was not being treated fairly by the Apprenticeship Committee. When a deputation from it waited on the firm the first speaker seemed to take up a personal attitude. Another member, who was a ■welder himself, was quite satisfied with the work. It was felt that had the case been handled properly, a satisfactory conclusion would have been reached. It was not a case of straight-out welding.

A Former Appeal. Mr Justice Frazer: The matter was decided by the Apprenticeship Committee. It came before the Court on appeal, and we decided wc could not allow it. The Apprenticeship Order did not provide for welding being taught as a distinct trade. The two boys must bo apprenticed to one of tho regular masters of the trade, so that they can get work in any of. the engineering works when out of their time. That decision was arrived at after heaving Mr Carter and members of tho committee, and that is tho point on which he comes into collision with the law. The boys should never have been put on without tho permission of the Apprenticeship Committee, and should have been engaged in welding merely as part of their training as fitters.

Beadle said it had been assumed that the same thing could be done as in Dunedin. Mr Wakeliu said the witness was referring to tho days before the Act camo into force.

The Judge; "Things were very loose in those days. If there wero no vacancies in a shop of your kind at the end of their apprenticeship the boys might not be able to obtain a position through having only a smattering of fitting." Mr Justice Frazer said the members of the Court wore of opinion that the work of welding in this country was insufficient to justify full apprenticeship. In technical matters the Court always felt justified in supporting the committee, unless it had taken a wrongheaded view, acted through some personal bias, or misread the Act. The committees were experienced in their own trades, and the Court would be very chary of upsetting their decisions. If it'did so they might as well do without the committees altogether.

Decisions Flouted. In this case*- the action taken by the firm was not merely flouting the decision of the committee, but ,il,'~o that of the Court. Mr Carter hao/done this, whatever object he might have had in mind. "That decision was final under the law, whatever view Mr Carter takes," said the Judge. "He must abide by it. If ho doesn't he will find it hard to kick against tho pricks." Mr Wakelin said ample time had been given defendants to adjust these matters. Mr Carter might be ill at present, but he was not ill when he made his decisions regarding the lads. It was a deliberate breach of the Act, and was not made through an oversight. The, committee's decision was conveyed to him, and ho was told what would happen if he did not comply. It was quite evident, from the way in which Boadle had spoken, that Carter had determined to keep the boys at this work. The Judge said it could be regarded as a continuing offence. "If you bring Mr Carter up once a week, he will get tired of it before you," said his Honour.

Mr Wakelin: These boys are not apprentices. Mr Justice Frazer: Then he is committing an offence against the Apprenticeship Act. Whatever the wages are for welders, they Bhould get them. After the Court had retired for a few minutes the Judge said that during the discussion on the case the'history of it had been recapitulated. The position was that the defendants purported to employ the boys as apprentices to a branch of the engineering trade.

Committee's Attitude. The Apprenticeship Committee refused to recognise apprenticeship to welding alone. Carter thereupon appealed, and the Court disallowed his j appeal. Notwithstanding this the defendant firm had continued to employ the lads in this manner. The matter had come before the Court in August, and was adjourned to allow defendants to make other arrangements. The defendant continued to flout the award and the committee. There was not sufficient scope in this country for an apprenticeship to welding alone. It had not arrived at that stage at which such a branch of engineering could be recognised as a trade by itself. It was recognised as a subsidiary branch of the trade, which apprentices might be taught for three or six months of their term. In industrial matters as in others, somebody mu9t make the final decision. Under the award the boys could not be employed as apprentices to the trade of welding. It was illegal, and they were being employed in breach of both the Apprentices' Act and engineers' award. The latter provided only for journeymen and apprentices. They were not apprentices, and were being paid less than a journeyman's wage. The Court could look on the breach only as a deliberate one which had been continued after warnings. Defendants would be fined £lO on the first charge and the second would be dismissed. If the boys were kept on the offence appeared to be' a continuing one, and the inspector would be neglecting his duty if he did not prosecute for breaches of the award for each day the offence continued. "I hope," said his Honour, "that the defendant firm will see that it is useless to attempt to flout the law in this way. If it does it will bo subject to still heavier fines."