QUESTION FOR COURT

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 128, 25 February 1944, Page 3

QUESTION FOR COURT

Effect Of, Apprenticeship Order A case, stated to be of considerable importance to industry, was heard last Wednesday in the Arbitration Court, when a claim for a penalty .for alleged breach of an apprenticeship order was brought against William Cable and Co., Ltd., bv the District Registrar of Apprentices, Mr. G. F. Grieve. The question arose as to whether _ an apprenticeship contract under the existing order was affected by a subsequent apprenticeship order. The decision was reserved. . . The engineering trades apprenticeship orders in question were dated December 30, 1924, and August 11, 1943, respectively, and the apprenticeship contract concerned; was entered into on November 15. 1.940. Mr. Grieve contended that the contract, having been made under an order which had been superseded, was subject to variation in rates of wages in accordance with the new order, and he quoted several decisions in support of that argument. The importance of the ease lay tn the fa« that the Court’s decision would have ■renew? application to apprenticeship contracts in force at the time of the superseding order being made. He contended that section 4 of the Apprentices Amendment Act, 1925, had general application to all conl/acts still 'current that had been made Under the first order. Appearing for rhe defendant company Mr. W. J. Mount joy said that the- contract in question conformed in every way to the law. The Labour Department was making its present contention for the first time since the Apprentices Act came unto force in 1924. He claim ed that for the past 20 years the Court, the Labour Department, the workers, and the employers had accepted the view that an; apprenticeship contract executed in accordance with the requirements ot the law became a deed of agreement and was enforceable only in respect of the terms and conditions it contained. Mr. Mountjoy also quoted provisions of tne principal and amending Acts in suppot t of his case/ „ , , „ At the conclusion of the argument, Mr. Justice . Tyndall asked whether any objection would be raised to the matter being referred to the Court of Appear for an opinion. It was a question of law, he said, and one of importance. Mr. Mountjoy said that the employers definitely would not object. He felt sure that the Court of Appeal would view toe law in accordance with the intentions of the Legislature, and he contended that the Court of Arbitration had power to state a case in the present matter. Mr. Grieve said that the Labour Department would not agree to a case being stated, and that in any case it had doubts as to whether the Court of Arbttration had power to state a case for the Court of Appeal in apprenticeship matters.