EMPLOYER'S APPEAL FAILS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20090, 20 November 1930, Page 9

EMPLOYER'S APPEAL FAILS.

APPRENTICESHIP CASE. j _ i An appeal against a decision of the j Christchurch Motor-Body Builders' Ap- j prenticeship Committee "was heard in , the Arbitration Court yesterday, before | Mr Justice Frazer. With him on the j bench were Mr W. Cecil Prime (cm- j ployers' representative), and Mr A. L. Monteith (employees' representative). The appeal was brought by B. H. Biseley, u»jtor-body builder of Christchurch, against the committee's decision refusing to allow him to employ J. Hurd, as a fourth apprentice. The grounds of the appeal were that the appellant already employed the full quota of journeymen as required by law. Itiseley conducted his own case. Hia Honour said that there were four journeymen already employed, and three j On the basis of foxir jour- j neymen Riseley was entitled to two ap- | prentices, while the third was employed j as an apprentice on the ground that j one of the first two had reached his ■ fourth year of employment. Thus, apparently, there was no room for the taking on of a fourth apprentice. In support of his appeal Riseiey said that since September, 1928, he had employed four journeymen including bimoelf. , One of the apprentices had completed the third year of his apprenticeship at the end of May last, and he contended that that apprentice then became, for the purpose of proportionate grading, a journeyman, and that thus ho was entitled to take on a fourth apprentice. liis Honour pointed out that Kiaeley had aiready taken on a third apprentice j on the ground that the otter had reach- | ed his fourth year. Ho said, further, that there was nothing in the appren-

ticeship order to indicate that a fourthyear apprentice could count as a journeyman for the purposes of grading. An employer could take on an apprentice above the number allowed by the quota only when the junior apprentice already employed had reached his fourth year. Tho appeal was disallowed.