APPRENTICESHIP CONTRACTS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21903, 2 October 1936, Page 7

APPRENTICESHIP CONTRACTS

FAILURE TO REGISTER > COMPLAINT AGAINST I department 1 An allegation that prosecution ha : followed on an employer taking ai tion in accordance with advice give > by the Department of Labour ws made in the Magistrate’s Court ye: terday morning by Mr R. A. Youn, who was appearing for thp defendan in a claim by the department arisin through failure to register contrac for two apprentices, George Marti: aged 18, and' Lawrence Barber, age 20. The defendants were Keith Ai nold White and Lumsden Garth Taj lor, plumbers, of. Kilmore street. Tfl department was represented by Mr i Wilson. •„ .Opening the case, Mr Wilson sai it was - important that registration b effected as early as possible. Evidence was given by an mspec tor that when asked to produce con tracts defendants admitted that neithe boy was registered, but produced con tracts ready for approval by the ap prenticeship committee. It was thei intention to apply lor the contract to be dated so that the boys wouk receive the advantage of the time the; had been already employed. Marti! was in his third year of employmen and Barber in his second. ‘ . Mr Young said there was consider able controversy over these matter at present. A number of employer who had taken on boys, not as appren tices, had recently entered contract for apprenticeship. In answer to Mr Young, the inspec tor admitted that Barber had beer taken on at the request of the voca tional guidance officer of the Younj Men’s Christian Association to giv< him something to occupy his time, anc to allow him to learn something useful in that time. For the defence, Mr Young said tha' Taylor went to Mr R. T.. Bailey foi advice on his position as Barber was nearing 21 years of age. Mr Bailoj said the best thing he could do was to apprentice him. It was Taylor’s own idea tc* pre-date the contracts id the benefit of the boys. He took lh« contracts back to the department anc was told they would be refected tc the committee. The next thifig was a letter from Mr Bailey telling birr that he was to be prosecuted. Tayloi went to see Mr Bailey, who said that employers got themselves into a “mess” and then came to him to help them out of it. He said he would hold the matter up. The next Taylor knew of the matter was when he received a summons, “I cannot understand this practice.' said Mr Young. “Employers go for advice, do as they are advised, and are subsequently prosecuted. They dc not know the position, seek advice, and take these steps in innocence. II the department told them the position and left it at that these cases would not be taking up your Worship’s time. I submit that if advice is given, It should be given correctly and the department should stand by that advice right or wrong.” Taylor, in evidence, said he went to Mr Bailey and was told to get the contracts in. When he received the summons he went to Mr Bailey and said he understood the matter was being held over. Mr Bailey replied that he had referred to a different matter altogether in saying he would hold it over. The magistrate remarked that tne department’s attitude seemed to penalise apprentices because their employers sought to give them the benefit of what they had already learned. He was satisfied there had oeen a technical breach made in the utmost good faith, and he would give judgment for a nominal sum. Judgment was given, for the depaxt-