APPEAL DISMISSED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 51, Issue 175, 8 May 1931, Page 6

APPEAL DISMISSED

YOUTH LOSES POSITION. COURT SUPPORTS COMMITTEE. APPRENTICE IGNORED WARNING An appeal under the Apprentices Act, against the l cancellation of his apprenticeship by the Apprentices Committee, was heard in the Ashburton Alagistrate’s Court to-day before Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M. ‘The appellant was J. W. Aliller, aged 17, who had been apprenticed as a pastrycook. Air R. T. Bailey, chief of the Labour Department, Christchurch, said that the complainant was apprenticeo on June Id, 1929, to Air Steele, but complaint was made that Aliller would not appear at work early, and complained of AEiller’s behaviour generally. The Apprentices Committee called a meeting, but Aliller did not attend it. His .apprenticeship was cancelled. William Steele, baker, East Street, said that lie indentured Aliller as an apprentice. As far as .his work was concerned he was all right, but he refused to get out of bed early. Witness often had to call him. This happened twice a week. Sometimes he arrived half-aiL-hour late, and at other times lie was an hour and a-lialf late. That went on all the time. He had warned Aliller, but he continued to be late. He had complained to Aliller’s father and mother. The father had wanted to fight witness one morning. The lather said the boy had stayed out late at night. To Aliller: There was a copy of an award in the bakehouse, but the apprentices did not come under the award. They came under the Apprentices Act. Aliller certainly made pp his lost time in the afternoons, hut witness was losing his rest because he had to wait late with Aliller. The trouble was the delay caused in the mornings. In the box, Aliller said that he did not receive notice to attend the committee meeting. His father received a notice. When he first started with Steele he was called by Steele every Friday morning. The starting hours were changed every few months. He was late not more than six times. After Steele had had trouble with witness’s father, he stopped calling witness, and he (witness) was late as a result.

To All* Bailey: Witness saw the Labour Department officer in Ashburton, but was not told that he had to attend the meeting of the committee. In his first year he was not often late, one or two mornings very late. He admitted that he attended a lot of dances, but mostly on Saturday mglits. He had an alarm clock, but it did not waken him sometimes. He admitted that he attended dances and had taken liquor there, but that was since he had left Steele’s. He had been given several warnings by Steele. The Alagistrate said that an apprentice was helped very much these days by legislation, which prevented his dismissal unless by the committee. There was further protection m that he could apnlv to a Alagistrate if he did not agree with the committee s decision. An apprentice could not do what he liked; he had to conduct himself properly. When it came to repeatedly ignoring his employer s instructions, it was a serious tiling, it appeared that if the evidence he had heard that day was the same as that presented to the committee, the decision of the committee had been justified. It seemed a pity that in the present ease the lad had ruined his career, but he must remember that there were many lads who were anxious to take up jobs, and lie should not complain if his employer took on someone else. The appeal was disallowed.