WAGE RATES FOR APPRENTICES

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 65, 3 April 1937, Page 6

WAGE RATES FOR APPRENTICES

-Press Assooiation.)

Important Decision Made By Arbitration Court EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS '

(By Telegrapb-

CHRISTCHURCH, Last Night. Hnndreds of young workers in industry will be affected by the decision o£ the Arbitration Court, annouuced today, on the exteut to which apprenticeshop orders are governed by amendments to the Factories Act. The opinion is given by Mr Justice Page, in response to an application by the District Registrar of Apprentices, Wellington, for an interpretation of an apprenticeshop order in the Wellington furniture trade. Two questions were submitted to the court. The applicant pointed out that the amended section of the Finance Act, 1936, direeted that "the minimum rates of wages payable to apprenticee shall be as fQllows: First year 15/- a week, second year £1 2/6, third year £1 10/-, fourth year £1 17/6, fifth year £2 5/-." The applicant therefore asked (l)s' "Are the rates of wages provided ae set out above which are embodied in existing contracts of apprenticeship, subject to the provisions of section 32 * of the Factories Act 19212-22 as amended by section 12 of the Factories Amendment Act 19361" "(2) Are the rates of wages in a contract of apprenticeship entered into after July 1, 1936, under the same apprenticeship order subject to the half-yearly iiicrements as provided by section \22 oi the Factories Amendment Act 1936," " ' ' In his opinion, 'Mr jhtstice Page stated that the court was proliibited froa* prescribing in an apprenticeship ordetf hours' of work less favourable than those, prescribed- in' tho Factories Act,. but there was no such* provision on' the question of wages. There " was tto-' thing' in the Factories Amendment Aist, 1936 to suggest that apprentioeship orders; validly made . in pnrsnanee of-. the Apprentices Act, 1923, or coniractis made' pfior to the coming into- force of the Factories Act were to be read; subject to the provisions of that Act. The answer. to the first question -.therefore , was "No." In reply to. the second question, his Honour said he found himseif nn-ablsi to ' agree '• with the contention of Mr T,O.. Bishop for the empldyers that thsi. intention of the ,1936- section .was men- : ly to fix a minimum * of 15/- a week, with increments of fonr shillingB * every six months until the end ' of the third year Of employment, and after that not less than £2 a week. Mr Bishop. had contended that it was not intended to provide that every person in a factory should receive halfyearly increments during the first thre# years of employment irreSpective of the wage agreed on with the employer, I& his Honour 's opjnion the addition ife the amended section of the words the agreed rate l ' TequiTed thajb the half-yearly increments provided for in the section should be based and paid on the rate agreed upon, and not upon the minimum rate. The answer to the' second question therefore was "Yes."