APPRENTICE’S RIGHT

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 269, 9 August 1943, Page 6

APPRENTICE’S RIGHT

After Release From The Armed Forces MANPOWER CASE Dominion Special Service. AUCKLAND. August 7. The rights of an apprentice who had served in the armed 'forces and who, since his release, did not wish io resume his apprenticeship, were discussed at a sittiiippj.f the Auckland Manpower (Industrial) Committee. The case was one in which D. F. Gavin, an upholsterer's apprentice, appealed against being directed from C. J. Reynolds to the Buoyant Chair Company. The grounds of the appeal were that the direction was unjust. Mr. ’J’. G. Fielder, the assistant manpower officer, said that Gavin, who was now 20. was apprenticed to the Buoyant Chair Company tinder indentures, and had served 10 months with the company. In August, 1941. he entered the Army as a territorial, and came out again in October. Following Japan's entry into the war. he went back into the Army in December. 1941, and remained there .till April last, when, on his own application, he came out with others of the 18-19-ycar-old group. After his release, he reported to his former employers, but found that the factory was temporarily closed, due to fire damage. Mr. Fielder continued. While the factory was being repaired, some of the employees were lent out. and the Buoyant Chair Company indicated that Gavin should go to temporary work till he was required again. He was sent to Mr. Reynolds, who paid him a journeyman’s w.q.ge and who was convinced that Gavin could give satisfaction for the money. The Buoyant -Chair Company now required him. “When he went into the Army, he was immediately covered by the Suspension of Apprentices Emergency Regulations-. 1939.” said Mr. Fielder. "One clause of the regulations states, in effect. that a contract of apprenticeship is immediately suspended by the entry of the apprentice into any of the armed forces, for the period of his service there and for six months thereafter, unless it is revived in the manner prescribed. "Cannot Be Compelled.”

“To revive it the apprentice must, within six months of being discharged or otherwise released, give written notice to the employers that he desires the contract revived either for the balance of the apprenticeship period or to the date of termination originally fixed. If he does not take steps to revive it in that manner, the apprenticeship lapses. . Amendments to the regulations say. in effect, that the apprentice has the right to revive the contract, but cannot be compelled to do so.” . “There is no obligation on this youth to go back to his apprenticeship if he does not. wish to do so,” said Mr. K. M. Simpson, a member of the committee. “The matter is purely one of his own right, ami it is a right over, which the employer lias no jurisdiction.” Mr. Fielder pointed out that when Gavin applied to leave the Army it was specifically to return to his former employers. While he was with Mr. Reynolds, he did not apply for the revival of his apprenticeship. Both employers wished to do what was best for the youth. It was largely a matter of whether he would be better receiving a journeyman’s wage, or continuing his apprenticeship. where he would be able to learn his trade thoroughly. Committee’s Decision.

Mr. N. E. Crimp, a member of the committee ;• This youth did not choose to resume his apprenticeship, but your direction seems to be an attempt to force him into it. . Mr. Fielder: He is on leave without pay, and such men can be directed. The National Service Department merely followed the terms of application to leave the Army, lie said h e wished to go back to his former employment, which was that of an apprentice. “Even if he went back to his former employers, he would have the right to say whether or not he would start again as an apprentice,” said Mr. Simpson “I do not say you have no right to send him back there, but I do challenge your right to send him back as an apprentice. ’ The chairman, Mr. J. 0. Liddell, commented that important precedents were involved in the case, and a good deal might depend on it. The case was adjourned for further investigation, following which the committee upheld the appeal.