APRENTICESHIP

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3192, 17 September 1917, Page 4

APRENTICESHIP

AN INTERESTING CASE,

In the Magistrate's Court on Saturday, before Mr. S. E: M'Cartby, S.M., the hearing of the case in which John Henry Greig, gardener, and Norman Mark Greig, machinist, claimed from C. M. Banks, Ltd., printers and stationers, the sum of .£IOO was concluded. Mr. P. H. Putnam appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. T. S. weston for the defendant company.

In the statement of claim it wa6 set out that by deed of apprenticeship, dated June 1, 1912, it was agreed that the apprentice, Norman Mark Greig, was apprenticed for the term of six years. The apprentice duly entered into the employ of the defendant company, and was continuously employed until June 1, 1917. About May 29, Claude M. Banks, managing director of the company, dismissed the apprentice without justification or excuse, and prohibited him from returning to the employ of the company, and the company had failed to take the boy back or transfer him as an apprentice to another employer. By reason of the company's action, the boy had been unable to follow his occupation as a letterpress machinist. Further, the apprentice had been deprived of the benefit of bis' apprenticeship, and had been seriously injured in his prospects in the trade of a letterpress machinist. Both the plaintiffs, it was alleged, had suffered damage and injury.

For the defence, it was alleged that the apprentice acquiesced in the termination of the contract. When he was admonished by Mr. Banks for some carelessness and threatened with dismissal, the lad said he was quite willing to go. It was urged that- tliero- was no damage suffered, and that tho apprenticeship could have been transferred, and that such a transference was practically arranged with Watkins. Tyer and Tolan. Tho boy was engaged by the firm named, and actually worked for four hours. It was also urged that there were other firms willing to employ the lad and allow him to complete his indentures. There was not the least difficulty for the boy to obtain employment owing to the scarcity of workers in the printing trade. Evidence in 6unport was called, but the Magistrate decided that tho boy had been dismissed, and did not leave on his own initiative. Judgment was given for I plaintiffs for ,£lO, with costs.