ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 766, 15 March 1910, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT.

APPRENTICES' HOLIDAYS. AN IMPOKTANT CASE. ■ Tho Industrial Arbitration Court, comprising Mr. Justice Sim (president) and Mr. W. Switt, and Mr. J. H'Cullough, employers' and workers' representatives respectively, sat in 'Wellington yesterday. A case of considerable importance, relating, to tho payment of apprentices in tho bootmaking trad© during holidays, occupied much of the morning sitting, Walter Newton, Inspector of Awards, claimed to recover the sum of .£lO from E. Hannah and Co., Ltd., boot manu factnri-rs, Wellington, as a penalty for a breach of tho New Zealand Federated Boot Trade Award, regarding female operatives. The statement of claim set out that the defendants did, on January 12, 1910, dispense with the services of a femalo apprentice named Florence Lobherz, and did not procure her another employer carrying on business within c reasonable distance of tho defendants place of business. Mr. D. M. Findlaj appeared for the inspector, and Mr. C P. Skerrett, -K.C., with him Mr. Stout, for the defendants. ... Dismissal Before Holidays. Mr. Pindlay said the object of the proceedings was not to obtain cumulative penalties with regard to the breaches but to ascertain whether a breach hac occurred. A number of apprentices em : ployed by B. Hannah and Company hac received notice purporting to terminate their engagement in December last.' Th< notice, dated December 16, 1909, was a: follows"In accordance with Clauso 1' of the award, you are hereby given notice that your employment will terminate on December 23, 1909, at 5 p.m. . Or Monday, January 3, 1910, the factory wil! reopen at 8 a.m., when, you may obtair employment- at present rates and condi tions." The notice was apparently given to all apprentices working in the factory undei tho award. Some apprentices, it seemed desired an extended holiday at Christmas and New Year. TJnder Section IS of the award applied to apprentices, 24 hours' notice could be, given by tho employer to the worker, or vice, .versa ij regard' to tho termination of employment Only a portion of tho apprentices desirec a holiday, but all were, dismissed. Thi action of the respondent company, rightlj or wrongly, was' to avoid payment oi wages to apprentices on a holiday, thej being entitled to the benefit of tho award, which stipulated-for wages duringholidays. The firm (lid • not notify tho inspector of the reason for dismissal, although the actual dismissal was notified Evidence for the Claim. • Charles E. Aldridge, Inspector of Eac tones, said he discussed the matter- wit! the head of the firm, and was told thai the girls were . put off because most ol them "wanted a nbliday. .Witness repliec that it would bo necessary for the firm to procure tho girls another employer the answer being that the .firm woulc take them hack after the .holidays. W. L. Newton, Inspector of Awards, said that in August last the . girls wer< treated as apprentices, and again las! January. Mr. Skerrett: Did you not, as a resuli of your inquiries, ascertain that none 9! these girls wero bound either by indenture or otherwise to learn the trade foi a stated period? . . admitted that none, of the ap prentices was bound, except by reasot of tho provisions of the award. . . Albert H. Cooper, ex-president of -th< union, said provision for under-rato work ers.was made in Clause 13 of .the award; but h-e did not know if any were'work :ing under that clauso.' A worker was noi entitled to award rates until ho had beei five years at the trade., "

Inspector Aldridge, recalled, said he had received no requests from the defendant firm for under-rato-workers'- permits-un-lor the award, and, believed they had no such- workers. Florence Blanchfield, formerly an apprentice at Hannah's for six months, said that.last December 6ho took a list around imong tho girls for signature by those n-ho wanted a fortnight's holiday. All signed except threo or four apprentices. She only tried to get tho signatures of lpprentices. Somo only wanted a week, md some only what they were entitled to. . Tho fortnight's holiday was not granted. They got eleven days, and were jiven notico to leave before the eleven days. They were all taken back afterwards. Sho was getting .£1 a week. To Mr. Skerrott: She was not bound as m apprentice. She left on giving 24 hours notice. This was the practice of those girls who had not been employed five years, and who wished to leave. The aotice was always accepted. Lily Mence said she was an apprentice at Hannah's. She entered their employ' last year. She was not asked about the Christmas holiday, but recoived a notico that her services would not be required, but that she might apply for employment, again after tho New Year. The Defenco. Mr. Skerrott, in opening the defence, discussed .in detail the clauses of. the. award relating to apprentices, and argued that there were two classes of apprentices. There were tho indentured or contractual apprentices, who were bound toserve for five years, and whom the employer was obliged to teach the trade, una there were others—quasi-apprentice&— who could leave or be dismissed, on 24 hours' notice. All those concerned in the present case were of the latter class, and the defendants had the right, to dismiss them as they did. Charles John Ward, factory manager for Hannah and Co.,..said:the girls aid not enter into any arrangement to re-' main for a term or to learn or be taught the trade.' They were paid considerably, over'the award rate. It had long been the custom in the. trade to terminate this class of hiring on 24 hours' notice, and this had been done in' a number of' instances on the part of the" girls during the currency of the award; The firm' had no indentured apprentices. Judgment Reserved. Mr.,Findlay contended, that, there were anly three classes of'workers under .tho award—journeywoinen, entitled .to full pay; under-rato workere, and : apprentices, l'he defendants were on the horns of a dilemma, for if- these girls were not apprentices, they were not entitled t« pay them less than award wages, as they had not obtained ■ under-rate permits. The jirls had been treated as apprentices, and had been called ,80 in. the returns sent by the defendant firm to' the Labour Department. The President said tho Court would take time to consider its decision. He mentioned that the'apprenticeship clauses in the award (which was originally an agreement between the parties) were _an amalgamation of the Court's, apprenticeship clause and some provisions of the old Canterbury award. _ ; . Inspector Newton also claimed to re:over ,£lO for another breach of same award, in that the .defendants did on January 12, 1910, discharge the same female apprentice and failed to advise the Inspector of Factories of such discharge md the reason for' it. As this case was dependent upon the former one, it was allowed to stand over antil the Court has given judgment on.the former. *• Parties to Awards., Application to add parties were granted in regard to. the following awards, no objections being raised Carpenters' and Joiners' Award (country); Carpenters and Joiners' (Wellington); Tailors', Tailoresses* md Building Trades' . and Labourers' Award :