APPRENTICES OUT OF WORK.

Press, Volume XLIV, Issue 19389, 15 August 1928, Page 3

APPRENTICES OUT OF WORK.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. BREACH OF AGREEMENT ALLEGED. [THE PBESS Special Service.] • DUNEDIN, August 14. A claim for £592 as special damages and £75 as ; general damages for an alleged breach of an", apprenticeship agreement was brought against Charles Begg and Co., Ltd., '"in'the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Ostler by Kenneth 5 James Riddle. Mr R. S. M. Sinclair appeared for. the" plaintiff, and Mr; N. G. Hay for the defendants. . • .Mr Sinclair said the case was first. brought in the Lower.Court and removed to-the Supreme Court on the application' of-the defendants. The plain'trff was engaged under an agreement iwh.cb was signed by him and/his guardian on August'26th, 1927, :the tcrm-bf apprenticeship to bo five years from .March 28th, 1925. Plaintiff stated iu evidence that he was in the employment of the company for three years. V In his particular branch of .the trade there were thirteen iourneymen, ; all of whom were dismissed- last" year. He, was left ,ruoro or \ less "stranded" ' and ' had done general labovrrrio since then. He;had assisted tlie -sfcoreman and had done a lot of wdrk.;in; the "timber yard. The manager was the. on'y. one. left who knew anything* about .piano., case,, making: After "October ; of'"last year when-the journeymen 'left,- lio- saw Mr .Ritchie, the general manager,, and told him the pesition was very -unsatisfactory; There' was ' another apprentice in a similar .Later Mr Ritchie would'not see hiin and"he'consulted a solicitor •on whose - aclvice J he left the firmi "Now he wasfout of employment. He-had made an .effort to get work in cabinetmaliing, but had not beeU : successful. About : a week; before he left Mr Ritchie said the firm intended to resume, the manufacture of pianos, :but he;considered .that.tbat ,was "bluff"

- Evidence■'. was given by Stanley A, . Grjibb;- an apprentice, employed;. by Messrs Begg and Co., and by George H. Lightt'oot, District Registrar, of Apprentices^. The .-.'atter,' stated .that, i" October last Mr Ritchie asked ,the Departpient* to -help in getting other employment for. two apprentices. The Department was Hot successful in doing 50... ;He advised that if the apprenticeship order Nvere cancelled some monetary'condderation'would have to ' be hiade.' td,'the - Lots." : '.To.JVJr.H'ay.-.rfe thought Mossrsßegg and Co. were ■■■ anxious to find other work* for the boys. . Mr Ritchie had shown, himself- anxious to- do so. _A certain - latitude'ihad to' be' allowed- in thereinploynieiit>of- apprentices. ; He thought ;tlie training wjiicii','. the boys had obtained at Begg's would 'have fitted them for a'vJQb'iii general cabinetmakiilg; V '■•"' %: '■/-""'.--" ; ":"-';: ~'■'• -.,;•■' Tlie was that the compVny-had never any thought of not complying-with the Act. • The directors liad-gone-so -far;as -Jo do' their best, to.carry on a'.losing, .business iij.tbo interests { of 4he; aippreritices. ; Biddle had.'had in opportunity to'complete- his apprenticeship,-but - : had Vf ailed; to do £o."' ; , ■.'.'-'''''■ :-, V'. ■:•■'.' '' • 'During -the-hearing-of the/case the question was.' raised . whether . the proceedings should hot; have.. been taken under:- the Apprentices.; Act, • which \rbuid brinz. the- claim iiiider 'tlie" jurisdictioii of "tlie -Arbitration; Coiirt. _ . .Ills Honour reserved his decision.