ENGINEERING TRADE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1033, 25 July 1930, Page 11

ENGINEERING TRADE

fixing proportion of APPRENTICES shh! 16 / J ont€l ? tion of the Apprentice- ■ D Committee in the engineering jjj, ® that it had the right to deter p ® w^e ther the proportion of apWa* C ** to journeymen was correct contradicted by Mr. Justice Court**’ P res * de nt of the Arbitration today, when matters affecting Thl*!?* e were under consideration. n tahed r< ’ Pancy of the re turns furpui a , to the committee was comt °* r * Ka rter. union in rn? t€ ’ 'F'kcxi an appeal was made of .I unection with the apprenticeship T. R», * "® c^ae to the firm of A. and tjL flj l, limited. He said that when Porting *l eturn wa s received the proWa- of Journeymen to apprentices 4Bd i«? OWn 48 15 to 16, respectively, H>ter as 15 to 18. tl£ a-i lOllOlll, ®aid that in calculating flevmll! P ?£* lon of apprentices to jour>rade t* 1 ’ if branch or branches of the frenti/TV 7 * 1 * 011 the apprentice was ap*nd tl f e< ' lnu st be taken by themselves, of thl! ♦ ° urneymen in other branches uL must be excluded from The engineering tradf up of Quite a number t> f toimwJ 1 *? ranches * and when an order ptorWf « em together, it would ajW JL Qrst sight that the proportion over the whole a indivisible unit. Another clear ♦l?* tae °rder. however, made it trade V 1 ® d i ffer cnt branches of th a the tin*** to treated separately f >r °ne n*. l ? o ® 6 of apprenticing lads tj Ui on a ? lore °* those branches. Com kcanch* 1 vf’ a * so ' necessitated the On thft*considered separately cleaTivi ** Ures as submitted, it was «ttra it?* tlle flrm was entitled to one in reeiS? 611^ 06, 1,1/1 not to the three io dgedA whom appeals had been der of cJ tae’s contract was in orWonta v‘ lority » the appeal in his casa <:a*e* of allowed. Appeals in the K * ® ri <ison and Iv. Massey, j tr, would be dismissed.