ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 16349, 15 February 1917, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

The Arbitration Court have forwarded to the Clerk of Awards at Du'nedin two interpretations cf awards.

In dispute between tho Invercargill branch of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, and Joiners' Union of Workers and William Aitken and others the question was asked by tho Inspector of Awards: "If an employer takes on an apprentice to learn the" trade, but fails to give notice thereof and tho name •of 'he apprentice to the Inspector of Factories and to the secretary of the union within one week after the expiration of the period of probation, is the obligation of the apprentice to serve his employer a duty enforceable under this award':"' The Court's answer is: "It is clear that the failure to give notico of the apprenticeship in terms of clause 8 of tho award, although a breach of the award, for which the employer is liable, does not in any way affect the' mutual obligations of the employer and apprentice under the award. J 'he question of apprenticeship is one of fact, but once this is established it is ab.surd to suppose that because no notice of the apprenticeship was given as required by tho award, that therefore there was no apprenticeship. The answer to the question must therefore be in the affirmative." ln_ the Dur.edin and Suburban General Carriers and Coal Merchants' Union of Employers and others the question was Aikcd by the inspector: "This being an iivterim award, and as previous awards Contained a clause exempting work done on contracts from the provisions thereof, the question has been raised as to whether employers carrying on work under contracts entered into prior to the date of ihis award, but subsequent to the Ist September, 1912 (the date mentioned in ohuse 17 of the previous award, which •:lause without alteration is incorporated In the said interim award) are exempt from the provisions of the said interim award, in particular as regards the rate of wages?" The Court's answer is: "The interim award referred to merclv continued the existing exemption as to existing contracts entered into prior to the Ist September. 1912. but made no further provision with regard to contracts entered into after that date. The answer to tho question submitted must therefore he in the negative."