Did Not Register Contract Of Apprenticeship

Chronicle (Levin), 7 August 1948, Page 4

Did Not Register Contract Of Apprenticeship

Failing to register a contract of | apprenticeship as . required by the 1 kpprentfceship Act, 1923, and 'its 1 a.mendment ofw1930 was the charge!' preferred against ' Peter Alfred ; Peterson, garage - proprietor, of ; Levin," by the lnspector of Awards,! an'd deait with in the Levin ,Court ( yesterday. The charge stated that defendant haci empmyed John Charles Atkinson as an apprentice to . the motor engineering trade betwe'en February 2, 1-948, arrd June 18, 1948, without registermg h.m as s'uch. Defendant, who was represented by Mr. N. M. Thomson, entered a plea of guilty. The lnspector of Awards, Palmerston North, Mr. R. J. Weir, stated that defendant had first employed the -person hivolved in uhe case in May, 1924, and he had eontinued in empl'oyment till January, 1948, when he had gcne to Paraparaumu to eontinue his trade under another employer. He had returned to Peterson's. garage in 1947. Witness added t^hat he bexieved defendant had been* very iackadaisical about the questioh of the apprentice, but that the Act was there in the interests of bochi the employee an'd employer. Thefact 'that ihe employer was not in possession of the apprenticeship certificate issued to ali apprentices at the conclusion of their period might affect his future, particularly as possession of the certificate made it possible for the hoxder to claim! a journeyman's rates of pay. It wasj also difficult to get the Court of Arbitration to agree to the back dating of an apprenticeship pericd, •thus giving the employee credit for his past time. The person eoncerned was now' entering his fifth year at the trade. Cantinuing, the inspector said that he understood defendant was anxious to letain the services of his employee, and had applied for the; back-dating of the apprenticeship period. , ^ For defendant, Mr. Thomson said that his client had been lax and had nothing to gain in not registering his empioyee. He had not overlooked others in his employ and it wouxd be regrettable indeed if defendant suftered for this instance. Defendant had apparently been care^ess, but .he took it * that alli employ ers knew their obligations, said the '*magistrate,- Mr. H. J. Thompson. Steps had, however, been taken by defendant to put the matter right* he a'dded, when imposing a fine of £2. Cuurt costs were 10s. .