“AUTOMATIC” APPRENTICESHIP

Evening Star, Issue 16033, 9 February 1916, Page 7

“AUTOMATIC” APPRENTICESHIP

■‘CASES AGAINST THE ‘TIMES.’ DEFENDANTS WIN. Two cases brought by Inspector Browett against the ‘Otago Daily Times’ and ‘Witness ’ Newspapers Company were heard in the Magistrate'© Court yesterday morning and afternoon before Mr Widdowson, 6.M. The specific charges against the company, from whom £2O was claimed as a penalty, were: 1, That during the period between September 14, 1915, and November 19. 1915, tuey , employed one Ronald MAllen, a third-year apnrentk-o .eompisitor, at a wage of 15s per week instead of £1 per week, as required by the said award. 2. That during the period between July 1, 1915, and December 14, 1915, they employed one Alexander Anderson, a secondjear apprentice compositor, at a wage of 10s per week instead of 15s per week, as required. Hie point involved was whether these youths upon employment at the trade in the jobbing room automatically became apprentices. Plaintiff's case was reported in yesterdays issue with the exception of the evidence of the witness named hereunder: Wm. Easton, accountant for tho com pany, produced a wages book, showing M'Alleffis name entered in August, 1913, as apprentice, and Anderson's as apnrentice compositor in January, 1914. Witness said these particulars were erroneous. They wore not contained in the original wages book. They were put in on witness’s instruction for convenience, but he could not say where the clerk instructed had got his information. It was, however, wrong. Mr Payne said that before the inspector could succeed he must prove that M‘Allen was an apprentice on September 14, 1915. The question as to whether or not or i\hen he was apprenticed was a question of fact, and could not be assumed. Because the boy did any work that was usually the work of apprentices it could not be assumed that he was at that time an apprentice or on probation. The inspector asked the .Court to assume that when the boy first went into the jobbing room he was on probation or an apprentice. But his own evidence showed tho v . er 7 opposite. Quite apart from the deed of indenture, M‘Allen himself said that he 9i aS imv 10 apprenticed on November tl, 1913, and his wages were reduced then to an apprentice's wage. The Act distinctly said that apprenticeship could not bo assumed without an agreement on the one side to teach and an agreement on the other side to learn, and the evidence clearly shn.wt«a that under this M'Allen’s term commented in November, 1913, Anderson sin December, 1914. The-term of apprenticeship was six years, and the three months probation was included in the an. prenticeship The evidence would show that these boys were taken on originally with -be idea of later apprenticeship on a definite date, which definite date was the date he had mentioned. It was certainly not necessary to have indentures, but if there were indentures, and these indentures showed that the period started on a cexiam date, the Court could not go behind them, and they fixed the question of the date when apprenticeship started. Under some awards a young man' became automatically an apprentice, and had the Arbitration Court intended that the employment of a boy should involve automatically apprenticeship in this trade, they would have stated so in the award. But they had not. •

Harry Hams, manager of the printing department of the ‘Times’ and ‘Witness'’’ said that before November, 1913, M’Allen was not on probation. M'Allen knew that h.s apprenticeship commenced on Novemner 61, IJI3. ihe probation commenced then, and some four months later (about one month after probation was over) he was indenture. As to this book referring to M Allen as an apprentice, it was not his wages book, and not only was this entry wrong, but there were other entries wrong, i) or example, there was another boy entered as apprentice who had never" been an apprentice. In regard to Anderson, witness had. had his full complement of apprentices when Mrs Anderson brought the boy, and she had been told that he could not bo apprenticed until a vacancy occurred. Another apprentice (Sinclair) volunteered for the front in August 28, 1914, and m December following, when Sinclair had left tne Dominion, Anderson was indentured. The ‘Times’ did employ an extra boy (not an apprentice), because with so many men employed, there was a lot of cleaning up to be done, and to employ an apprentice always to do this would not give him a chance to learn his trade. F , em7l( ; k ’, managing director of tne limes, said that no one but himself had complete authority to take on apprentices It was certain that before the dates on which the papers were signed there had been no probationary period. The clerk who entered occupations in the wages book had classed all boys generally as apprentices, although they were not all apprentices. These boys were there waiting until they could legitimately bo taken on as apprentices.

In answer to further questions, Mr Fenwick said that the inspector seemed to imply that he could not employ a boy unapPrciltice' He wholly denied that tho Court held this. The Court held the opposite. -n I v| Bl 'i°T ett There are only three classes provided for—journeymen, journevwomen, and apprentices, and if you employ a boy in the trade he must be an apprentice. ‘ Witness added that so long as he could remember (since 1878) the company had employed boys who were not apprentices, and in hjs opinion it would be an improper thing to prohibit boys from coming in and waiting for their chance of apprenticeship; and, so waiting, it was, in his opinion, proper that these youths should have some opportunity to learn. There was no harm m them distributing type, but they should not t type. If this boy Anderson was put to set type it was against instructions. iMr Browett contended that a boy engaged in the industry was either an apprennce or a journeyman. If he was neither he should not be employed. The Court had ruleel that this apprenticeship, system of the Court was equal ter an indenture, bmee the boys were employed in the trade, had the employer the right to contract out ot the award by indentures? The Magistrate: It must not be assumed that when an employer takes a bov ho takes him as an apprentice. There must ertablished atl ° n ° £ m3Ster and a PP rentice

Mr Browett contended that the moment the company began to teach a boy anv part of the trade the company undertook the responsibility involved in the relation between apprentice and master. ■ The Magistrate: The question is Did they contract to teach him? Mr Browett said these boys were either apprentices or journeymen. They were not journeymen, because they were afterwards indentured; and if they were not apprentices, then they should not have been employed.

Mr Payne, in reply, said the Magistrate was asked to assume apprenticeship 3 where there was no contract. The only contract .proved (and actually proved by the witnesses for the prosecution) was that giving the definite dates upon which tire company said the apprenticeship commenced, and those dates must be accepted. The Magistrate said that the whole issue turned upon when these young fellows could be held to have been taken on as apprentices. An apprenticeship could not be set up until the relation of master and apprentice had been established, or until there was evidence showing an intention to defeat the award. The latter point did not, however, arise in this case. It had been given in evidence that M'Allen went into the jobbing room some months before the date of . the indenture,' and that when he went there he was employed by the company at the same wage of 16s up to the time that he was told there was a vacancy for him as an apprentice, when he received the apprentice wage. It rvas shown also that up to that date the company had a full complement of apprentices. These two points constituted evidence to show that the company were- acting in a bona fide manner.

It had been alleged that these boys were doing work which was apprentice work. With regard to that matter, he did not think it had been conclusively shown (except with regard to a small matter of type-setting) that there had been any work done by-the youths that could be called strictly apprentice work. He was of opinion with regard to M'Allen’s case that the relation of master and apprentice was set up at the time mentioned in the deed. With regard to Anderson, the question was ; when was there a contract that should be taken and accepted as an apprenticeship ? The evidence was very contradictory, hut he was not disposed to accept Mrs Anderson’s before Mr Harris’s. Mr Harris’s evidence was certainly the evidence that ought to be accepted. According to him it was evident that these boys went there with a view to becoming apprentices, when there was a vacancy. That was duly conveyed to them, and they were apprenticed when the vacancies occurred. With regard to the work (setting type), he did not think that this affected the present position, for if it was done it was done without direct authority, perhaps thoughtlessly, or perhaps by the boy in his desire to get on. It had not been’ shown conclusively that the boys had been put on work whose nature would justify the Court in that the relation of master and apprem tice had been entered upon before the dates mentioned in the deeds. To establish that there would have to be "such evidence as would show intention to defeat the award as it boro upon apprentices. It did not appear that there was any such intention in this case. Judgment would be given for the defendants. Mr Browett asked permission to appeal since it was important to determine whether when the company commenced tcaching a boy they did not undertake the duty attaching to apprenticeship. The Magistrate refused leave to appeal since it was purely a question of fact’ He. remarked, however, that it .was a matter that should be kept in view in the new award. Mr Browett ; The point we want to settle is whether a bov automatically becomes an apprentice by being employed at the trade in the jobbing room.