PAINTERS’ APPRENTICES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 414, 24 July 1928, Page 12

PAINTERS’ APPRENTICES

COURT ASKED TO REDUCE WAGES OLD SCALE WANTED Contending that the present rates of wages for apprentices to the painting trade are unreasonably high the Master Painters* and Decorators’ Guild of Auckland brought an application this morning before the Arbitration Court for reduction to conform to standard rates for apprentices. Mr. Justice Frazer presided. The present rates are £1 a week for the first year, rising by 5s weekly at the end of each six months, to £3 at the end of the fifth year. It was proposed by the employers that the rates be reduced to 15s a week for tlic first year, rising thereafter by 7s 6d a week each year until at the end of the fifth year the boys would receive 455. Outlining the case for the employers, Mr. Prime said that those responsible for influencing the court to raise the rates to their present unreasonably high level were educationalists, technical authorities and idealists. “The present rates are far too high,” declared N. Taylor, manager of John Henderson and Company, Ltd. “The boys do not earn the wages paid to them.” To his Honour, witness said he would not trust boys even in their fifth year to hang paper in a first-class manner. He would not put them on ordinary bungalow jobs. “Houses in Grey Avenue and Freeman’s Bay woyld be the only places I would let them work in alone,” he said. “They slop the paste everywhere.” . Cross-examined by Mr. 11. Campbell, for the Painters’ Union, witness admitted he was not a tradesman. He denied that 50 per cent, of his firm’s work was ship painting, and admitted that four apprentices had been employed by way of punishment on “chipping.” Robert Pybus said that at the present time he believed the boys could not earn the existing rate. He could not see any reason why painters’ apprentices should be paid higher rates than other apprentices. “ROBBING MONEY-BOXES’* Summing up his 'case, Mr. Campbell contended that apprentices by being given suitable work should be able to earn their present wages. If they did not employers would not keep the boys longer than their probationary period. He stressed the danger to growing boys from paint. Perhaps that was why so many boys were sick. For that reason they should be paid a higher rate than other apprentices. He admitted that trade was slack, but that was no reason for “this very mean way of trying to rob the children’s money-boxes.” Mr. Campbell contended that if the apprentices did not earn their wages they would not be taken on.

“Employers find that the boys are not a payable proposition,” said Mr. Prime, addressing the Court. When the present rates were agreed to in Wellington they were adopted in Auckland because there was a good deal of sentiment and idealism about. *We are suffering throughout the country on account of one man, an idealist, whose evidence carried weight with the court,” said counsel. Regarding Mr. Campbell’s assertion the trade was unhealthy, he said that the two weeks’ sick-pay allowance accounted for that. If the wages were not reduced it would simply mean that employers would be forced to take on fewer apprentices. This was not a threat, but a statement of fact. In view of the fact that a similar application was set down for hearing at Wanganui, his Honour intimated that no decision would be given on the i case at present.