PLUMBERS' APPRENTICES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 126, 24 November 1925, Page 8

PLUMBERS' APPRENTICES

PROPORTION TO TRADESMEN.

Tho question of tho proportion of apprentices to journeymen tradesmen in the plumbing and gasfitting trades was discussed this morning in the Arbitration Court, consisting of his Honour Mr. Justice Frazer, Mr. H. Hunter (workers' representative), and Mr. W. Scott (employers' representative). Mr. B. L. Hammond appeared for the Master Plumbers' Association, and Mr. 11. Thompson for the "Wellington branch of the Plumbers' and Gasfittors' "Union.

The application by the employers was for the amendment of the proportion of apprentices. At present the district proportion is one to three, and the individual proportion ia one to two. It was stated that the result of this was that many employers could not avail themselves of their right to have apprentices because the district proportion had been exceeded. To remove this anomaly the district proportion should be the same as the individual proportion.

Tho application of the worjeers was to reduce the individual proportion from one to twoj or fraction of two, to one to two, or fraction of tho first two, and to require that no apprentices shall be employed by any employer who is himself not a registered plumber; that no employer should be allowed to take apprentices until he has been established in business for at least twelve months, and nas adequate workshop facilities; further, to extend the scope of the apprenticeship committee, which is now within a radius of ten miles of Wellington city, to within twenty miles of Wellington city.

"Some of these firms," said Mr. Thompson, "havo two or three apprentices and no journeymen." Mr. Frazer: "That is a breach of the awards" •* Mr. Thompson: "Yes, but they take on the apprentices while things are busy, and they have several journeymen engaged. When things get slack they put off the journeymen and work merely the apprentices." :

Mr. Frazer: "The Court does not like to see that state of affairs; but the law does not allow a properly indentured apprentice to be sacked. All that the Court could do would be to transfer the boy to another employer who wanted to take him. Then there is the difficulty of transferring, say, a country boy to town. Then the employers mentioned may be ■working employers. The difficulty in this application is that even where there arc plenty of journeymen and work the employer may not be able to take on an apprentice, because he has already exceeded his district quota."

Decision was reserved,