CARPENTER’S APPRENTICE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8354, 14 February 1913, Page 11

CARPENTER’S APPRENTICE

QUESTION AS TO TRANSFERS. UNION CASE FAILS. An application under the Industrial Conciliation, and Arbitration Act for tho enforcement of the Wellington carpenters and joiners’ award was made to Air W. G. Riddell, S.AI., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in a case in which the Carpenters’ and Joiners Union proceeded against the G. and A. Odlin Timber and Hardware Co., Ltd., for allegedly, on or about February Ist, 1912, dispensing with the services of Frederick John Tarr, an apprentice, before the termination of his apprenticeship, and failing to give him a certificate for the time served by him; and for allegedly, on the same date, transferring Tarr to another employer without giving one week’s notice of such transfer to the inspector of Mr D. M. Findlay appeared for the union, and Mr M. Myers for the defendants. Mr Findlay explained that the carpenters’ and joiners’ award stipulated that when discharging apprentices employers should find other employers for tho apprentices, and should give certificates stating what time bad been served by them. Provision was also made that when apprentices were to be transferred to other employers, the inspector of awards. should be notified a week ■ beforehand of the transfers. In reply to Air Myers, George Blatherwick, organising secretary or the union, said that Odlms had previously given trouble in regard to apprentices, but not much with journeymen. He knew that in November last, after an interview with the inspector of awards, Odlins had given a certificate as to the apprenticeship served. Evidence was given by Mr Pulsford, x builder, that Tarr had been handed over to him temporarily, and that at any time Odlins could nave taken him back. For tho defence, Mr Alyers contended that he was entitled to a nonsuit. Mr Findlay had not proved the allegations mentioned in the statement of claim. It was obvious that if there was a transfer in November theunion could not succeed. Counsel submitted that it was plain that an apprentice could not be transferred in law except by a transfer of his apprenticeship articles. The mere handing over, or loaning of an apprentice was not a transfer, because he was not discharged. Tarr had been lent to Air Pulsford at a time when .business was slack with Odlins. The inspect suggested that a breach had been committed—counsel claimed that that was not so—and Air Odlin transferred the indentures and gave notice to the inspector. Counsel pointed out that J. Odlin and Co., and not C. and A. Odlin, should have been proceeded against; but said he was not going to raise any special defence on that ground. • , r Air Findlay said the union was desirous of having the practice of loaning apprentices stopped. His-Worship remarked that tho evidence, although vague, showed that there could not have been a transfer earlier than November. Pulsford had stated that ho only had the apprentice temporarily. In these circumstances the court could not inflict a penalty. The plaintiff union was nonsuited and the application was dismissed with costs.