BREACH OF AWARD

Evening Post, Issue 149, 20 December 1935, Page 22

BREACH OF AWARD

EMPLOYER'S APPEAL

DEFINITION OF APPRENTICE

Yesterday afternoon the Arbitration Court heard an appeal against a decision given in the Magistrate's Court last July when Michael Zemba, a soft goods manufacturer, of Wellington, was deemed to have committed a breach of an award. He appealed against the decision of the Magistrate, Mr. J. H. Luxford, and the Court—Mr. Justice Page and Messrs. W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative) and A. L. Monteith (workers' representative)—was asked to decide whether the decision of the Magistrate was right in matter of law.

Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., appeared for the appellant, and the respondent, L. G. Goodacre, inspector of awards, conducted his own case.

Mr. O'Leary said that the award in question was made in 1922 and was no longer in force. He submitted that the award was defective and did not cover the class of workers the breach of the award was alleged to affect The judgment was based on the definition of apprentice in the award, but he contended that the workers had not been apprenticed and submitted that the definition did not constitute a contract of apprenticeship between master and worker and such a contract must be proved before the claim could succeed. The award stated that an apprentice was a worker who had served at the trade for a period less than two years, and who must serve for the full period and be taught some branch of the trade. \The employees . in question were not.bound in any way but could, and sometimes did, leave after working for a .few days. It was significant that tHe .defect in the award had been remedied in the new award of April, 1935, which made provision for learners as distinguished from apprentices.

Mr. Goodacre submitted that the definition of an apprentice in the award was a-sufficient'-one* .-and- that the workers, although apprentices, could leave during the first three months of employment, as that was a period of probation.

Decision was- reserved.