APPRENTICES’ WAGES

Hokitika Guardian, 16 August 1932, Page 3

APPRENTICES’ WAGES

RECENT REDUCTION. LABOUR PROTEST TO . MINISTER. WELLINGTON, Aujguse. 13. A deputation from the Trades and Labour Councils’: Federation, waited upon the Minister of Labour (the Hon. A. Hamilton) ,to protest against the action of the 'Stipendiary Magistrate at Christchurchvin reducing the wages of. apprentices engaged in the plumbing ■ trade by 33 1-3 (per cent, without ask'ing one of the employers to state bis 'case for a. ntodifidAttori of the apprenticeship order.' 1 t ■ The deputation claimed that the Magistrate had exceeded, his power } as Section 56 of the Finance Act; 1932, did not give him power to interfere with the wages- of the apprentice. The section of the Act gave the Magistrate power to amend the terms, and he could modify,' suspend, or exclude the operation of any provision of an apprenticeship order. The legislation of 1932 was intended to relieve employers who were jin difficulties through having apprentices for whom no employment coiild be found, and

' for the time being to give relief by <• suspending the payment©! wagqs, f§r„ a period to be decided upon by the ,Magistrate “after' Laying heard the application of the..employer and . also the case on behalf of the apprentice ) . either presented, by* the patent, apprentice or Apprenticeship . Commit-, tye-. In the, cake placed before the Minister, the Christchurch, Magistrate had decided the pplicy to be adopted without hearing. one application by an employer. It is claimed >*hat. the employers did not seek -a reduction- in the wages, but, were more concerned with a system of relief through ratibning.

.The question of, firms having an excess iof apprentices and employing them upon labouring work, instead of teaching them, their trade,. was also placed';before -l,the Minister.' I£ was claimed that these apprentices were now excluding adult labour from the workshops, • practice to bo in line with'tile agitation for "cheap boy labour. Complaint was made* that the Labour Department had, refused to supply a labour union* with the number of firms where it was claimed‘the system was being abused It was claimed that sucli information should not be withheld where the interest of aduit labour was concerned.

The Minister promised the deputa-

tion that inquiries Would the,.mattfiy^, r pWc^;%|^ l .HjißJt?i' r = ; ~