ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19791, 15 February 1928, Page 10

ARBITRATION COURT

AN APPRENTICE'S APPEAL Tho Arbitration Court resumed its sitting yesterday afternoon, before Mr Justice Frazer, in order to hear an appeal by Ernest Alfred Bennett against his discharge from employment by the Love Construction Company. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the appellant, Mr J. Y. Love for the company. Bennett appealed against his discharge from employment as a carpenter’s apprentice by the Love Construction Company, holding that he. had been dismissed without just reason. His Honor: What is tho reason for his dismissal ? Mr Lightfoqt (Department of Labor) : The notice sent to me was that ho was dismissed for inattention to work and for late arrival. Mr Love said there' were other reasons. The appellant gave evidence. Ho said he was apprenticed to the company in 1925. He did nothing but flooring at the Exhibition building. He never did proper, carpentry work, such as other boys in the firm were given to do. He was put to brick-cleaning, and claimed dirt money, which seemed to annoy the company. His parents owned a milk run at Brockville, and on six or seven mornings he could not come to Dunedin on account of the rain. On three mornings he was ill. He had at i all times done his best to carry out his duties. To 'Mr Love: He remembered taking French leave and gohm to the show. When the foreman told him ho was not to go to the show, witness did not uso bad language to him. He did not speak in similar language to one of the leading carpenters. He did not call him a “Bible-hanging .” He called him a “psalm singer.” His Honor: Why did you call him a psalm singer? Witness: Ho was at it all the time, and asking, “ Why don’t you go to church?” Mr White: You got fed up with it? Witness; Yes, Mr Love: Possibly he got fed up with your language? Witness; I. do not know. To Mr White: While working with Love Bros, he used to give a hand on the milk run, leaving home about 5 n.m. Sometimes, he rose at 3 a.m. When the motor wagon came to town oa its run he got a lift on it, and on the way he deliveied milk. Jn the period when he lost time it was exceptionally wet in Dunedin. To His Honor; He knew ho could complain to the registrar of apprentices or to Mr Lightfoot, but ho did not do so

Evidence was given by Mrs Bennett, the mother of the boy James Yeoman Love said the company had come to the conclusion that, owing to the boy’s behaviour, they could not make a satisfactory carpenter of him. At present they had forty apprentices, and they telt their responsibility in that respect. If a boy was allowed to walk off or to say “To - with the boss,” with a few adjectives added, the other boys might say, “ Well, who is the mug? Is it that boy or us?” As a result, unrest would creei) in, the foreman would lose touch with the boys, and it would be bad :or all concerned. It was rare that the firm took a drastic step, but in tins case they could not help it. The boy was placed under a special man for training, but the man reported at last that be could not train the boy. The boy was willing and hard working, but, ownin' lo the milk business, often came fate.” When a boy took the law into his own hands and walked off home, it could not he allowed. To the Court: In the matter of apprentices the company kept within the

Ja Mr Lightfoot, in reply to the court, said the company had not exceeded the number of apprentices allowed to them. Generally the company’s apprentices received fair treatment, particularly if the boys behaved themb° Court; lie had had very little trouble with other boys. He had never before dismised a boy, though j ho had had one or two “on the mat. To Mr Monteith: He had never been before the Apprentices’ Committee. The court retired tor a quarter of an hour. .. , On resuming, His Honor said tne boy’s progress in his apprenticeship had been marked by unpunctuality and insubordination, and such a course ol conduct was not only bud for the boy, but it bad a disturbing effect on the other boy.-.. A lino of conduct of that kind if allowed, would break down the discipline of the firm. The boy seemed to think it was competent for him to take the Jaw into bis own hands and rule Ids own destiny. In so thinking, he had made a big mistake, because it was only by submitting to a reasonable amount of discipline, that all people had to do in one form or another, that otm could make anything like a success of life. On the evidence before it, the court had decided that io had no justification for allowing the appeal. At the same time, it had considerable regret at seeing a young Icilow, who had served some years of apprenticeship, deprived of an opportunity of continuing to learn his trade and becoming a competent journeyman. After the court had come to its decision to dismiss the appeal it had inquired, through the district registrar (Mr Lightfoot) to inquire as to the possibility of the lad being taken back by the firm, notwithstanding the dismissal of his appeal, and it appeared there was a reasonable prospect of the lad being taken back. His Honor added some words of counsel to the boy, who respectfully stood and listened to the advice. In the coarse of his remarks, His Honor said that part of the trouble was no doubt due to the fact that the boy observed very early hours. This ought to be avoided. Probably QlO boy’s insubordination and pertness had been due to a certain amount of nervous irritation through his long hours. That, he imagined, would be one of the conditions on which the Tumi would take mm back, and he would be required to give n-oro of his energy to his work instead of going there after doing five hours work. c ‘‘ You have a reasonable prospect now,” continued His Honor, ‘ of turning out a good tradesman.