APPEAL FAILS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20089, 19 November 1930, Page 7

APPEAL FAILS.

apprentice dismissed. cask in arbitration court. Because an apprentice, J T. Qmnn, /; was tmploved by John Coutts, • «.r of Ashburton, told a follow tit "th. bos. W,„ „„d." A tocfluse this was passed on to the Sployer, he «s discharged from his «ition He appealed against his dismissal in the Arbitration Court yes;;rda7 before his Honour, Mr Justice mJr, and Messrs W. L'ec.l Prime (employers' assessor) and A. L. Monteitb (employees' assessor). <n, a appeal was disallowed. Ths appellant's father appeared for l' Mr V. H- "Woods, of Ashburton, fa' the employer, and Mr It. T giiiloy represented the Labour Departm Mr Woods said that Ouinn Had ■it- a good deal of trouble. "When Sid that he was not using the proper Li] for a certain job. he mumbled SmathinjT Another employee hoard the words, but Quinn denied that he fcad need them. A customer heard the evidence, Coutis said that he had asked the boy to put more energy into to work. He heard the boy mumble but did not catch the words. He denied having told the apprentice (feat he "should join the wax-works." He bad told the boy's father, howeier, that be was dull and listless. jjonglas Charles Robbins, foreman, aid that the boy's work was unsatis- • factory. . _ , Appelant, giving evidence, said that Coattl had told him that he. should be in a wax-works. Alluding to this remark, appellant said to another apprentice, and not to Coutts, "Oh, he's cid." . His Honour, in giving judgment, (aid that if the matter had depended entirely on tiio; incident which occurred on the unv before the dismissal the Court would have said that it # as an isol.ited case, and that the dismissal was not warranted. However, taking into account the evidence sj a whole, there was genuine cause for complaint of what the Act termed "inefficiency." The evidence showed that the lad was incapable. His attitude way not have been wilful; he may not have been interested, or he EAy have been just careless. In any case, he was unsatisfactory, and that brought him under the category of •'incapable.'' "We cannot say that the employer did wrong in cancelling the contract," said his Honour. "The Court is always loath to take action that would deprive a lad of continuing in a trade when a largo part of his apprenticeship has been served. However, we cannot let sentiment run away with us. The appeal must be disallowed. The only other alternative is that if Mr Coutts cares to do so, he can take the boy back as a probationer." In reply to his Honour, Mr Coutts said that it would be cruelty to keep the boy there. It would serve no purpose.