BOOT TRADE AWARD.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 770, 19 March 1910, Page 6

BOOT TRADE AWARD.

AN INTERPRETATION. IMPORTANT DECISION. The Arbitration Court yesterday gave its decision in the case Inspector of' Awards v. B. Hannah and Co., Ltd. Tie question was as to the interpretation oi Clause H of. the New Zealand Federated Boot Trade Award in connection With female operatives. According to the interpretation put upon the award by the Court, there are three classes of appren-tices-(l) The indentured 'apprentice, who is to be apprenticed for five years and paid the wages fixed by the award; (2) the apprentioe who is not indentured, but who is engaged to serve as an apprentice for five years; and (3) girls who are not indentured, nor engaged ,to serve a* apprentices for any definite term, bat are employed merely to-work in the factory. All the girls in question in the case came within the last-mentioned class, and as due notice was given to them in terms of Clause 12 of the award, their engagements were properly determined. There had, therefore, been no breach of the award, and judgment was given for the defendants. The case should be treated ae one brought for the'interpretation of the award, and no order was "made as to costs. ' ..-'•' . . '

Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared for the Inspector of Awards, and Mr.C. P. Sksr■rett and Mr. J.- L. Stout for the defendants.. .■■■..'■

The above decision is of interest to tJwi bootmaking trade throughout New Zealand. Messrs. E. Hannah "and'Cα, o£> Wellington, on December 16j 1909, gave.* number of their female apprentices a week's notice, of the termination of theix employment, but intimated at the same time that they would be able to obtaia employment again on January 3, when the factory would reopen after the ho&* days. The plaintiff (the Inspector of .Awards) sought to penalise the defendant company for the dismissal of an ap« prentice without procuring her qnotJuir employer carrying on business within a reasonable distance of the defendants' place of business It was allegedly counsel for the plaintiff that the object of the .company in' giving the notice of dismissal was to' avoid payment of wages to thb' apprentices during'the holiday, il being 'submitted that they were entitled, under the award to such payment . It was argued for the defence (but denied by counsel' for the plaintiff) that there were' two classes of apprentices titwVt the award—those who were indentured for five years and those who were not. The latter (to which class the defence contended that all those concerned in the case'. belonged)' could leave, 'or be dis-, missed, at 24 hours' notice. The Court has now decided (as above) that them are three ,classes of apprentices under, t'-"i award.V i It may be mentioned 1 that the award was not drawn by the Court, but was originally an agreement between the parties. The president (Mr. Justice Sim) remarked, when the case was' before

Court last Monday,"that the apprentice- , ship clauses'in the award were an amalgamation of the Court's usnal apprentice- ■ ship clause and some provisions of ■ the t , old Canterbury! award. , .■'..'■'.