INDUSTRIAL APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 128, 23 February 1939, Page 3

INDUSTRIAL APPEAL

Apprentices In Furniture Trade DISMISSED BY COURT Finding that the decision was not against the weight of the evidence, the Court of Arbitration, in a reserved judgment, discussed an apj>eal by the Auckland Furniture Trades Union against the decision of the magistrate of the Industrial Court altering the proportion of apprentices in the furniture manufacturing industry in the Northern Industrial District from one to three or fraction of three, to one to two or fraction of two. The appeal was the first of its kind. The reserved judgment stated:— ' “At the hearing one witness was called on behalf of the employers, but no evidence was submitted by the union, reliance being placed apparently on the facts elicited in cross-examin-ation. The onus of proof is necessarily on appellant, and it must be remembered that the magistrate, like this Court, is not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence. A perusal of the magistrate’s memorandum to the order shows that in fixing wages and ordaining the proportion of apprentices he had regard to the lines on which other apprenticeship orders had recently been made, and that he took into consideration the existing shortage of journeymen in the industry. Further, that he had regard to the fact that the proportion he fixed had been agreed upon by the Canterbury Apprenticeship Committee early in 1937; also that orders had been made on somewhat similar lines in ’Wellington, Wanganui and Southland. It is clear that the magistrate took Into consideration tile very matters that influence this Court in the making of awards Or apprenticeship orders. That (here was a shortage of journeymen in the industry was atlirmed by the only witness called, and his evidence on that point was not challenged. Under the circumstances. the majority of the Court holds that the magistrate's decision was not against the weight of evidence, and accordingly the apjieal is dismissed.

“Mr. Monteith disagrees with the majority of the Court, and thinks that, inasmuch as the only witness called appeared aeipiainted with only two out of nine branches of the trade, his evidence was insufficient to justify the conclusion arrived at bv the magistrate.”