APPRENTICESHIP

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 April 1932, Page 2

APPRENTICESHIP

NOVEL GREYMOUTH CASE Novel circumstances were connected with proceedings taken at the Greymouth Court, to-day, under the, Apprentices Act, 1923, but the infor-, mation was subsequently withdrawn, an agreement having been reached. The Registrar of Apprentices (Mr. F. G. Davies),, claimed a penalty of £lO from Frank and Thomas Sotheran, builders, under. Section 9 of the Act, , on the ground that they had failed to carry out the terms of an apprenticeship contract, made on May 28, 1929, whereby Frank and Thomas Sotheran, as masters, and carrying on the business of builders at Greymouth, did covenant to' teach John Henry Woollett, an apprentice, the trade of a carpenter, as set out under the general order of the Court of Arbitration, dated June 30, 1927, governing the conditions of apprenticeship in the carpentry and joinery LY*cicle Appearing for defendants, Mr. F. A. Kitchingham announced that they had agreed to take the apprentice back, and he suggested that the matter might be struck out. Under Section 131 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925, the S.M. had power to dismiss the case, if the alleged breach was excusable. Mr. Kitchingham proceeded to outline the circumstances. Woollett started as an apprentice with the defendants on May 15, 1929, he said. On August 3, he went off sick, and was off until the day the proceedings were lodged—a total of 645 days, including Saturday half-holidays and Sundays, in two and three-quarter years. He was attended by different doctors, and was in the hospital for quite a long time, suffering from' a disease marked by inflammation of the tissues around the bone of the leg. He was operated upon, and was in hospital on three occasions. On October 29 last, he was certified as fit to resume work, but by'the beginning of December he was again in hospital. No claim for compensation was ever made, but, about twelve months after the illness first commenced, Woollett said that he had knocked his leg at work. The doctors had agreed that a I’Jnock would constitute a potential cause of the disease, and that a blow of any kind might have brought it on. When approached by the Inspector, some months ago, defendants had agreed to re-engage the lad, if they could get insurance against accidents, or if Woollett would sign the ordinary form of indemnity, whereby the employers were not to be held responsible if ithere were a repetition of the disease. Woollett refused to sign an indemnity, and the insurance company refused to give a cover which would protect the employers in the event of the disease recurring. The parties thus reached a stalemate. As soon as the proceedings were lodged, two doctors gave certificates o£ fitness, and it was arranged that the insurance company would now give a complete cover. As soon as the certificates were handed over, Woollett would be free to resume his occupation. If the lad had died the employers might have incurred from £5OO to £lOOO liability, and he (Mr. Kitchingham) thought the S.M. would agree that the stand they took was perfectly excusable. Mr. Davies said that the statement regarding the length of time Woollett was off work, was correct. He wished to point put, however, that the youth got a certificate of fitness last February, and could have resumed work then. There had certainly been difficulty, as the insurance company would not give a cover; but the youth had been off two months when he should have been at work. It was not until the proceedings were instituted that the insurance company would “come to light.” Mr. W. Meldrum, S.M.: They are not a party to the case.

Mr. Davies: My point is that the boy has suffered. He has been off two months when he could have been at work.

Mr. Meldrum: You say that is the fault of the insurance company? “Well,” replied Mr. Davies, “the defendants would not take him on until he could get cover. My ribint is that Sotherans ought to have pressed the insurance company earlier.”

The S.M.: They could not bring an action to compel them to insure. Was there any fault on the part of the defendants? They were quite right in asking that they should be indemnified.

Mr. Davies remarked that the contract was between the boy and Sotherans, and it was their responsibility. It was only after the proceedings were instituted that the insurance company “came to light,” and the defendants were prepared to take the boy on* again. The Department was not asking for a heavy penalty. The S.M.: Do you withdraw the case?

“If you think so,” replied 'Mr. Davies. ■

The S.M.: I think it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Davies therefore withdrew the information.