CLAIM FOR WAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 86, 8 October 1931, Page 6

CLAIM FOR WAGES

APPRENTICES' RIGHTS ACTION AT COMMON LAW The dismissal of a number of apprentices who .were employed by the Hanaford and Mills Construction Company, Ltd., on the Cotu-tonay place Post Office contract anrl other jobs was the subject of proceedings taken, in-'1 the Arbitration Court yes--terday ■aflerhoon;-. The'facts weie that in Febiuury last-Mr. C M; Ollivier," of Christchurch; was appointed receiver for the debenture holders o^thi company. Shortly afterwards' Mr. W'lS.^vdeldn was appointed liquidator of the company, and in the course of his duties he dismissed fifteen [apprentices. ■' .The..youths brought action against Mr;' Ollivier'as receiver claiming that he should pay to each of them three months' wages as damages for dismissal. ' The proceedings yesterday were in the nature of a test.case, in which the plamtiff was'one'' 'of • the apprentices, James William Ross. The claim: was made as a preferential claim under section 14 of the Apprentices Amendment Act, 1930, which laid down that where a company was wound up and an apprentice was thereby deprived of his employment he was entitled to three months' wages for dismissal. ™ 'The Court, after hearing Mr. A. C. W. Mantell-Harding for !th<} plaintiff and Mr. J. F. By Stevenson for the defendant, held that an apprentice only had a claim under section 14; wheu the company was actually wounA.up. and not-during the course of tli.; winding ?P'"- The- motion: was iaccordingly dismissed. .The Court intimated that the apprentices Still had their Common Law rights to bring action for damages for wrongful dismissal against the liquidator, as representing the company, but the/had ipq rights against the receiver. . •-■ DiirintP ;the : hearing of argument, Mr. A. L. Mo;iteith, tlie employees' representative, observed that apparently section 14-of .the; Afct had given the something which, in; effect, ' was of no practical ■ imes'to-theih':-;', -?[f"'''