THE APPRENTICE LAW.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 September 1920, Page 5

THE APPRENTICE LAW.

TIME SPENT SOLDIERING. AN IMPORTANT CASE, j By Telegraph.—Frew Association, i i £ Auckland, Last Night An unusual case regarding the status of an apprcn \e returning from aofive service was argued before the. Arbitration Court, when the Inspector jof Factories, Mr. G. 11. Lightfoot, Hied Messrs. A. and G. l'riee, Ltd, (Mr. |leVeagh), engineer, of Thames, for a genalty of ,-Cjfl for an alleged breach; of the* boilermakers' award. Mr. Lightfoot said that a lad najtoed Ernest Alfred Peuno was engaged;by the defendants as an apprentice in Aflril, .1014, and the award then in operation provided for an apprenticeship of six years. In July, 1918, Penno went into camp, and was given a certificate stating that lie was within nine monthß o} completing his apprenticeship. On hit discharge from camp in November, 1918 as Prices were slack, he obtained employment in Wellington at £2 ft week, in addition to overtime- Itt Apfil 1919, Penno saw Price, who told him lie could start again, but would hav< to be satisfied with any work whicl might come along, or as an assistant boilermaker. Section 40 of the War Legislation ai'i < Sfatuto Law Amendment Act, of 1918 laid, dowh that where any person halt served in connection with the war I hj s ' contract of apprenticeship was deeniftl f to have been suspended during llis nrvice, and for six months after dueharce, unless revived. If, however, before tie ' expiration of six months the apprentice gjive notice in writing of his wigs to renew his apprenticeship, the contract whs revived. No limitation in any Act or award as to the a"", term of apprenticeship, or the number or proportion of apprentices to journeymen applied fo apprentices serving undor such * revived contract. The Section farther laid down that if no such notice was given within a period of six months, and no agreement was made to the contrary ir accordance with Section 28 of the War Legislation Amendment Act, 11)13, the contract of apprenticeship lapsed. - As Section 23 of the 1910 Act was repealed. and Penno had made no application in writing to have his apprentice.-. ship revived, and had entered into no agi cement, he was entering intD a new contract. His Honor remarked thai; surely a mu I ual agreement would lie held as valid even if no written application was made. Mr. Lightfoot said that under the boilermakers' award there wc-'e only two clauses—apprentices and journeymen. - The lad was treated as a j>urneyman, and when on several occasions he W4B >i ''stood off" work for a few days he wa* | not paid, whereas as an apprentice hj? 5 would have received pay all the time!. *.j| When Penno was re-engaged, tha de- j fendants paid liim 25s a week until Septcmber 8, and then 36s a week, instead',' of Is 7Jd, plus 2Jd an hour boilermakers' wages. Mr. Lightfoot contend- j ed that if no notice was given, any new J contract must bo subject to the existing award, which laid down a period of Ave 'jj years apprenticeship, The defendants 'i should, therefore, have paid him as a journeyman when his five years MM 1 completed. -> His Honor said that i£ he had. entered into t a new agreement, surely hj« was a first year apprentice. ' 3, Mr. Lightfoot maintained that ha wil not, as he had several years' training in 1 the trade. Ernest Alfred Penno then gave » denee. In reply to Mr. McGregor, wlt>, , > ness admitted that he understood Ms > would be re-instated as an apprentk* *' During the first few months the By ■ 'f jiatriation Department made up fc)l wanes to £3 a week. j V Mr. MeVeagh explained that the cei» tiflcate given to Penno was an arwt, and obviously, according to the aWMt ; then in force, should have read one jltt < live mouths. The lad returned as an apprentice, and was treated as one. /i Mr. Lightfoot maintained that the d*situation of a boilermaker was one whf '}■■ bad served five years, ai\d Penno had ; done this in September- ' ; :£ij Mr. MeVeagh said Section 40 did not JJ preclude parties from making a mutUiJ •<$ agreement to renew relations. Theft could be 110 doubt that the former corf. v.. tract had been renewed. The younj U man mistook the certificate for a legs'. document shortening his term by out year and accelerating his recognition a» a journeyman. % M His Honor said the ease waa import; ■jj ant, as about 09 per cent, of the 1&«* 1 who had returned had simply walkel ■li back and resumed relations with theft ■'/,<! employers without a written application The Court would give a written d«* ? eision. ■."r,'|