APPRENTICE V. EMPLOYER.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4388, 10 March 1922, Page 1

APPRENTICE V. EMPLOYER.

AN ALLEGED DISMISSAL. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. A case in which William Denton and Albert Denton took action against David A. Vincent, carrying on a saddlery business in Paeroa, was heard before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday. Mr J. L. Hanna appeared for plaintiff and Mr E. Walton for defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that by articles of apprenticeship dated August 10, 1918, the .defendant, with the consent and approval of plaintiff W. Denton, ac-f cepted Albert Denton as his apprentice in his saddlery business. Albert Denton remained in defendants’ sen vice until June 18, 1921. Also that on June . 18, 1921, defendant, without cause or colour of right, dismissed plaintiff Albert Denton and neglected to reinstate him. Albert Denton had lost five months of training thereby. The sum of £3B 10s, being 22 weeks’ wages, was claimed at 35s per week and £lOO damages for loss of employment, Mr Hanna said the position was purely a question of law. By the articles of appointment on August 19, 1913 defendant had taken on Albert Denton as an apprentice. The articles made no provision for the dismissal of the apprentice. Mr Hanna maintained that under the Articles of Apprenticeship defendant had no power to'dismiss plaintiff. The contract could not be dissolved for acts of misconduct. It may be alleged that defendant was willing to arrange a transfer. By transferring an apprentice without the latter’s consent the employer w.as liable to a fine of £lO. Defendant had no right to turn the apprentice away, even th'ough it may be the fault of plaintiff. His contentions may obviate the calling of evidence. Mr Walton asserted that His Won ship could not find until he knew the facts. The Magistrate maintained that Mr Hanna was bound to go into the facts. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE. Albert Denton said he. entered defendant's employ on August 10, 1918, for a period of five years as an apprentice. He was employed for two years and ten months, when defend.ant had dismissed him for not filling in the time dockets. Witness had returned after being dismissed, but was not allowed to work. Mr Hanna: What reason' had you for not wishing to fill in the timesheets ? . Witness: I don’t, know. My father told me.

Witness continued that no attempt had been made to reinstate him. He had been paid a week’s wages on dismissal; Witness had returned the foil lowing week to commence work again, but had been told that there was nci work for him to do. His father had gone to a solicitor, and after some correspondence he had been instructed by Mr Hanna to go . to Mr Jones, a saddler in Hamilton, for a week’s trial. He had gone on August 8, x and Mr Jones had not expected him, having had no word from defendant. He could have commenced work there had he had his own tools, but having no tools he was sent home. He did not provide his own tools in Paeroa. He had been instructed a second time to go to Mr Jones in Hamilton. He had gone bn November 2. Witness had told Mr Jones that he could not start work then as he was not well. Mr . Jones had contended that witness had been shirk* ing, and he was ordered to go home again. He had not been requested to go elsewhere .by defendant. Witness had two years to complete his time, when he would become a journeyman. There was nobody in Paeroa or in the vicinity where he could go to complete his time. He was willing now and had always been willing to return to defendant.

Replying to Mr Walton witness said he had never told Mr Fielder (defendant’s manager) that he would get away from saddlery. Witness had always done his work quietly, but admitted he had wrestling matches with other boys there. He would deny ant swering Mr Fielder back. He had never sworn at Fielder. He denied having used language as suggested by Mr Walton. He had taken timesheets, which he was instructed to fill in, home to his father, who had refused to allow witness tp do so. Certain allegations by Fielder were incorrect. Defendant had spoken t'c witness once or twice about behaviour. Cross,-examined by Mr Hanna witness said Mr Fielder was a shorttempered man, and was always growl-j ing. Questioned by the. Magistrate witness said that the time-isheet produced was the only one he had to sign. If he had been paid less than the award wage he would have wanted to know why, but he did not inquire when he was being paid more. He did not know the purpose of the time docket, and it had never been explained to him. TIME-SHEETS AND WORK. W. Denton, contractor, Tabuna, said he had agreed to the indenture of his son to defendant in the trade mentioned. Defendant had told witness that the bey had been getting on all right, but had received complaints from Fielder. Unless defendant/fook his son back the boy’s career as a saddler would be ruined. He could not afford to send him to another town to finish his trade. He had few causes for complaint against his son’s • behaviour. To Mr Walton witness said that he had objected to his son filling in the time-sheets ’ because the boys would

race each other in -their work and do slovenly work. THE DEFENCE. Mr Walton said he would lead evidence to show that plaintiff Albert Denton was not, in fact, dismissed. If the Magistrate was hot prepared to accept that he would lead evidence to show that the dismissal was justified. Continuing, Mr Walton said that when the employers come to a matter ol wages they go to the Award, but op, matters of misconduct they wished to deny the Award. He submitted that if there had been a dismissal it was jus’ifieu. In case of the decision being against his client .the claim could not be 'or prospective loss, but only loss from the time of dismissal to the time (he action was brought. MANAGER’S STATEMEN IS. Alfred E. Fielder, manager ter defendant at Paeroa, gave evidence tnat the plaintiff Albert Denton was a willing boy when he first commenced work. As time went on Denton appeared to tire of the ordinary routine, except when there was fresh work. When witness had been in the fr,ont of the shop he had often heard loud noises in the back. The boys were often wrestling, and Albert Denton was frequently in the argument. Denton was also often seen smoking, which he did not allow in the workshop. When reprimanded Denton would sulk and would not work properly. He had once answered back and used objectionable language. Denton, continued witness, had often wished to have an outside job, but his father had been ths stumbling block.. Denton had said “I’ll beat the old man yet ’ Denton’s heart was not in the work, and wit,i ness was of the opinion that he wished to leave it. The keeping of timesheets was essential when there were a number working in the same shop. Witness had shown Denton how to fill in the sheets, but Denton had said his father would not allow him to fill them in. Witness did not agree with the contention that filling in the timesheets would tend to make the employees do slovenly work. He had told Denton to go home till such time as he would fill in .the sheets. Witness had not dismissed the hoy, and had not used the word “sack” when tel’ing him tp go home. •To Mr Hanna witness said that if the boy had signed the time-sheet he would have been kept on. The failure to sign the sheets was the final rea-i son for dismissal. He did not suggest the introduction of the time-sheets to catch the boy Denton.

H. Jones, master saddler, Hamilton, said defendant had asked'him if he would take a boy to finish him off. Witness had agreed to take him on ’trial. It was some considerable time before the boy, who was Denton, arrived, and witness was not expecting him then. He arranged board for the boy. He did hot send the boy home, and did not turn him away, Defendant had written to witness some time after, saying tfi'at he would find tools for the boy. The boy came the second time, and witness, again arranged board. The boy did not arrive at work the next morning. The boy i;ang witness and said he was sick. Witness had tpld Denton that he could not be bothered with him any longer. Witness would not take Denton inh his employ after statements he had made to Mr Hanna and the Court. Regarding time-sheets, witness said that the time-sheet method was the only adequate way of costing jobs. He did not know of any employees rushing and slumming work when time-sheets were in use.

• Replying to Mr Hanna witness said the time-gheet system was essential where there was more than one apprentice. ENCOURAGING THE BOY.

W. Chisholm, apprentice to defendant for about 4% years, gave evidence that he had seen the boy Denton wrestling with another boy in the workshop and on the stairs. Fielder had spoken tp Denton, who had an-i swered him impertinently. The boy Denton had been talking of leaving the work, but his father’ had objected. David A, Vincent, defendant, carrying on a saddlery business in Paeroa, said Albert Denton was in his employ until last June. Witness personally supervised the business. Denton had at first shown ability and eagerness and his pay had been increased past the Award rate. Witness had left Paeroa to take up residence at Ngatea, leaving Fielder in charge of the business. Witness had made periodical visits to the shop, and had seen a change in Denton, who did not show his former energy. On Fielder’s recommendation the timesheets had been introduced. Denton’s father had spoken to witness over the phone objecting to the time-sheet system and threatening to force witness to keep the boy at work whether the boy fail-i ed to fill in the time-sheets pr not.. He detailed negotiations with Mr Jones, who had promised to take the boy. Replying to Mr Hanna, witness said he had increased the boy’s- wages after the first six months, and again six months later. He had given the increases to induce the boy to do better. Mr Walton submitted that the boy Denton had been untruthful in the witness box, and contradicted his own evidence. His evidence had also been conflicting with other witnesses. Mr Hanna drew attention to a portion of Mr Jones’ evidence that defendant had recommended the boy Denton to Jones. Mr Hanna thought that an attempt was being made to get out of a responsibility by blackening a boy. THE DECISION. The Magistrate said that the English law .was limited to the terms agreed upon by the parties in the in-( dentures, but in England there was

no Industrial and Arbitration Act. There was an award in force overriding agreements in the articles of apprenticeship. The indentures must be read with the award, and if there was an inconsistency in the’ indentures the award must prevail, The employer could terminate an apprenticeship without finding another employer when there were instances of misconduct. The employer had instituted the timing of The apprentice had taken the docket home and brought it back and refused to fill it in on instructions from his father. He could riot understand the father’s action. The employer’s ini structions were not unreasonable. There was evidence of further misconduct, but there was no need to go further than disobedience, and the employer was entitled to dismiss him. It was, however, proved that the employer did not dismiss the employee. His Worship was amazed at the tolerance of the employer in an endeavour to find another employer. Even if it had been established that the employer had dismissed the apprentice, he was entitled to do so. The judgment was for defendant, with costs £ll 0s Bd.