APPRENTICES’ WORK

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 290, 3 September 1931, Page 5

APPRENTICES’ WORK

Hutt Plumber Charged QUESTIONS OF LIABILITY ; In the Lower Hutt Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., reserved his decision on a point submitted by Mr. E. F. Rothwell when the Labour Department proceeded against J. W. Newell, and alternatively against J. W. Newell, Ltd., on two charges: (1) Of failing to train and instruct two apprentices in the trade of plumbing from April 30 to June 30, and (2) of failing to pay wages from ripril 30 to June 30. Mr. Jorganson appeared for the department. “The defendant is a master plumber carrying on business in High Street, Lower Hutt,” said Mr. Jorganson. He employed two apprentices. He is charged with failing to train and instruct them in the trade of plumbing, and also ■with failing to pay them wages. ihe apprentices were taken on by J. W. Newell when the business was carried on by him. Some time later Newell form" ed the business into a limited liability company as J. W. Newell, Ltd. The apprentices ' continued their apprenticeship without the transfer from J. W. Newell to J. W. Newell, Ltd., being notified either to the Labour Department or the Apprenticeship Committee, as Newell was obliged to do. Subsequently the company went into voluntary liquidation, a receiver being placed in charge for one of the debenture-holders. The receiver wrote to the Apprenticeship Committee asking if it could place the two apprentices to enable them to complete their training. The receiver was advised that under the present conditions the prospects of placing the apprentices were very remote. The boys were dismissed on April. 30 and no employment had been found for them. It was very difficult to get employment for them, but there was still an obligation on the part of the employer.” Mr. Bothwell said he did not dispute the tacts. His defence was purely a technical and a legal one. Save for a technical omission there was no liability by either defendant. Had the Apprenticeship Committee been notified of the formation of the company It would undoubtedly have approved of the transfer of the apprentices from W. J. Newell to W. J. Newell, Ltd. This would have relieved Newell from all obligations under the contracts. His liability would have been assumed by the company. Save for the technical omission of Newell to transfer the apprentices to the company, the only right the apprentices, In the event of bankruptcy, would be tne right of applying to the Court of Arbitration for an amount not exceeding three months’ wages, which would share equally with other wages in the liquidation of the company. The present Indications were that if fully realised the assets of the company would not reach the amount of the debenture. Therefore, had the apprentices been transferred they would have been no better oft. Newell’s financial position had also to be considered. Due to the bankruptcy of builders ho had lost considerably more than £lOOO in the last two years. If any penalty were Imposed under these proceedings there was the possibility of action being brought by the apprentices. In that event Newell would have to file a petition of bankruptcy, as he had no money to meet these wages. He pointed out that the magistrate had the .right to dismiss the charge if he considered .the omission was excusable. With regard to the action against the company, Mr. Rothwell submitted ho breach of the Apprentices Act had been disclosed. Every contract must be in writing, and it must be registered with the Registrar of Apprentices. The company never entered into any contract with the apprentices and was pever bound by them. With regard to Newell, Mr. Rothwell admitted he entered into a contract with the apprentices, and that the apprentices satisfactorily performed their part of the contract. For twelve months the boys worked tor the company, and for three months for the Regelver. It was not possible to argue, therefore that a contract still existed between Newell and the boys. They voluntarily terminated their employment with Newell and worked for the company, and later for the receiver.

Mr. Jorganson: The apprentices never knew when the company was formed. They did not know they were working for another employer. Newell should have informed the Apprenticeship Committee.