ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22033, 20 May 1935, Page 11

ARBITRATION COURT

Numbing apprenticeship DISPUTE The Arbitration Court sat this mera* ing to hear an appeal by the Love Construction Company Ltd. against a refusal to register a appren* tieeship contract. / Mr Justice ragai presided., and associated with him wer* > Messrs W. Cecil Prime and A. /L. Monteith. v- ' ./ , " l Mr J. U. Love, managing director or the company, said that he had not beeri informed of any definite grounds fog the refusal, arid could only assume that? the Apprenticeship Cominittee con- ; sidored - tbat his firm was not competent? to teach the boy concerned his trader However, the plumber in charge oithai department was quite competent tq teach, and the hoy himself quite cornpotent to learn, His Honour: What are the grounds!* ’Mr G. H. Lightfoot (Department of Labour): I understand that the grounds are that the company has no standing; in the plumbing trade. . > Mr T. Knox, chairman of the ■ Ap* prenticcship- Coirimittee, outlined: thd reasons for the refusal to register- the contract. He said the edriimittee considered that the scope of the company’*! work was limited to its own activities* arid it was not likely that it would -be asked by outside builders for work- irt the plumbing trade. 'Any big work it had secured it had sub-let to othe« firms. The committee contended thai ; the apprentice would be at a loose end* and would be called on to do work other than plumbing. It Was essential that an apprentice should serve six years continuously in the trade. A very high standard- was set in the interests of public health. The committee had had unhappy experiences before of the training of plumbing’ apprentices bj building contractors:' It was not biased, but it did consider that a bad preceded! would be established if this, indenture were granted. Mr Love gave, evidence , as to th* standing and activities of his company, and submitted that the statement h* made refuted the arguments of the Ap« prenticeship Committee. Lengthy, evidence was heard, and after the court, had retired to consider the case His Honour gave judgment in favour of the appellant company. 'Ha said that the court was, of the opinion that the ipere fact that an employer carried on plumbing in addition t® Other allied > trades was' not sufficient t® disentitle him to employ an apprentice and have the contract registered. The company in this case had made out it* case; arid the appeal would be.allowed.The essential qualifications shown were that the company employed .skilled plumbers and bad facilities for teaching an apprentice. His Honour added that, in the event of failure to adequately teach, any boy. the Apprenticerhip Committee had power to control the situation.'