APPRENTICES’ WAGES

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 64, 9 December 1926, Page 12

APPRENTICES’ WAGES

BREACH OF ACT ALLEGED INTERPRETATION OF LAW SOUGHT Whether the 1925 Apprentices Amendment Act applies to apprentices taken, on before the apprenticeship order of; the Court of Arbitration of 1924, was a question the Arbitration Court was asked to decide yesterday. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer was on the bench. The case was one in which the Inspector ' of Awards proceeded against Bum and Co., engineers, an alleged breach of the Apprenticeship Act. .Air. R. T. Bailey appeared for the Department, and Mr. P. Levi for Burn and Co. In outlining the case, Mr. Bailey said that the facts of the employment were agreed upon. Under-payment of some boys was alleged, and the main question was a legal one. He contended that W. Austin, taken on in October, 192*2, received £1 15s. per week in his fourth year, whereas under the order he was entitled to £1 17s. 6d. G. Payne, who commenced on June 9, 1923, was similarly underpaid. F. Wales, who commenced on March 24, 1924, was unpaid £7 2s. 6d., and G. Crabtree, who commenced on June 30, 1924, was underpaid £5 2s. Cd. The boys in question were under the provisions of the Act of 1923, and he submitted that the Act of 1925, of which a clause stipulated that where there were inconsistencies they should be read subject to the order of the Court, applied, and that in these cases the boys were entitled to Hie extra rate. Mr. Levi: We submit that we paid the wages in accordance with the award. Mr. Bailey said that the association had been approached in connection with the matter, and all the members, with the exception of Burn and Co., had complied with the Department’s request to readjust the wages. He pointed out, however, that Burn and Co. had given an assurance that the arrears would be paid if the Court found in favour of the Department. In addressing the Court, Mr. Levi submitted that the inspector’s interpretation of the Act was not quite correct. The order of the Court purported to apply only to apprentices taken on after the date of the order. . The Act itself empowered the Court to make an order, and also to make alterations in existing contracts. The Court, however, had not exercised that power. His Honour: I don’t know whether we could have done so. Mr. Levi: The power is there. His Honour: I am rather doubtful about that. However, what yon say is quite correct; we did not alter it. Your point is that there is no inconsistency, because, you submit, that there is no reason why the award and the order should be identical. Mr. Levi: Yes. Admittedly these contracts are not effective until the passing of the Act of 1925. His Honour: That is so. We came to the conclusion in cases like this that certain provisions of the order did apply even though the order of the Act did not apply. Air. Bailey: I submit there is inconsistency. Tn the second vear there was an inconsistency of 2s. 6d. . . . His Honour:' Air. Levi is using the word in a different sense.

Mr. Bailey: As as the 1925 amendment came into operation, then all existing contracts for apprentices had to be modified in accordance with the then existing order of the Court, and, in this case, the order was made .in 1924, so that the Act did apply. The order was made on April 1, 1924, and the Act did not come into operation until 192-5.

His Honour said that, as the case was an important one, a written judgement would be delivered in due course.