APPRENTICESHIP CASE

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20273, 26 June 1931, Page 8

APPRENTICESHIP CASE

APPEAL BY SCULPTOR. An appeal by an employer against the decision of an Apprenticeship Committee was heardJn the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon, when W, T. Trethewey, a sculptor (Mr H. Edgar), appealed against the. decision of the Christchurch Plasterers' Apprenticeship Committee (Mr C. H. Hoskin) refusing to allow him to employ feamnel Muuro, aged 16, as an apprentice. The grounds of the appeal were that appellant had the facilities and -•(Fas competent to teach the apprentice iq a proper manner. , , , Mr Hoskin said it was by the committee whether or' not Mr Trothewoy would liavo the proper facilities in the future —that is, whether he would always have sufficient work to keep an apprentice employed. Another objection was that appellant was not a working plasterer. - ... Mr Edgar dealt with the proportion ciaus© of the award, submitting that it was possible to interpret it to mean that the employer, could have one apprentice before r he had three journeymen in his employ. - • His Honour, in disagreeing, pointed out that there was a .traditional interpretation for this -type. of clause, which, was set out' in a more or less stereotyped form. * ' ''The case mnst be decided, he said' "on the terms of th 6 order, and the order provides in tho clearest possible' language that an employer must have at • least three journeymen before he can have on© apprenttco. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.