TO BE OR NOT TO BE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3347, 13 October 1911, Page 3

TO BE OR NOT TO BE.

OSBORNE’S PECULIAR POSITION. IN REGARD TO TAILOR’S AWARD. DOES ONE EXIST? An important point, involving the existence of a Tailors’ Award in the Poverty Bay district, was raised at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, morning, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., during the hearing of a case for an alleged breach of the apprenticeship clause.

Tire Inspector of Factories and Awards (Mr Wm. Henry Westbrook) was the plaintiff, and a lad, Wm. Atkinson, defendant, represented by Mr C. Stock, and with him Mr T. Alston Coleman.

The case was brought under clause 6 of the tailors’ award of 1906, claiming a penalty of £lO ‘from defendant for a breach of his apprenticeship, while in the employ of Messrs Rossbotham and Searle, tailors. The Inspector of Factories and Awards produced a sealed copy of the Award of the Arbitration Court, dated October 16, 1906, in which Messrs Rossbotham and Searle’s name appeared as original parties. The defendant worked for the firm from Ist February until July 22, 1910. Section 6of the Award, under which the action was brought, aeouired a five years’ apprenticeship. It required the master to adequately teach the trade in which the apprentice was engaged, but did not lay down that the apprentice should 'serve five years. However, a decision had been given, as contained in the digest of decisions of the court, for 1910. This was for the Bakers’ Award, similar in terms to the Tailors’ Award, and set out that the apprenticeship could be dissolved by consent of both parties, but otherwise the full term would have to be carried out. Witness visited Mr McClymont’s shop on August 17, and there saw defendant. Witness knew defendant was an apprentice to Messrs Rossbotham and Searle, so questioned him as to why he had left. Defendant gave as a reason that he didn’t like the man at the fatter place. Witness wrote to defendant on Sept. 13, warning, him that as he was a bound apprentice to Mass' s Rossbottom and Searle, and had sen eel six months, it would be necessary for him to return.

To Mr Stock: Witness knew toe defendant was apprenticed. He was aware the articles ' of apprenticeship had not been signed. No indent ares were required by the award, witness contended, and in support called attention to clauses 5 and 6 of the award. John Rossbotham, a member of Die firm of Rossbotham and Searle, tailors, gave evidence that defendant worked for his firm towards the latter end of January last, and left late in July. Witness was teaching the boy Ms trade as an apprentice, and paying him according to the award. No consent was given for the boy’s leaving, but no objection was raised, as defendant gave witness to understand that his parents were going to Auckland, and he was going with them. To Mr Stock: No articles of apprenticeship were signed, although some wot.:' prepared. Witness told defendant they would have to be signed, and asked' him to get l his father to come and sign them. The parents replied that they were leaving the district, and the matter was not pressed. Three objections’were raised for the defence—first, that the case was laid under an award of 1906, which, it was contended, was :notDiii force in Poverty Bay. It was further contended that there was no tailors’ award at present in Poverty Bay. Second, that there was nothing in’the Act creating a penalty for the apprentice leaving his employment ; and, third, that the relation of master and apprentice never existed between Rossbotham and Searle and defendant. A further point was also raised: the plaintiff claimed £lO penalty, and the' maximum amount in the amendment of 1908 was £5. Dealing with his contentions, Mr. Stock pointed out that in 1906 an award was made in the Northern Industrial district, which included Poverty Bay, and all the tailors doing business within the district. In 1909 a fresh dispute arose, in which the Poverty Bay tailors were cited. That dispute came on for hearing in Auckland, and a fresh award was made. There was nothing in the Act which said that on the making of a fresh award within the district where the same parties were cited under the original award, that any of the parties should he exempted from the second award. It was obvious, therefore, when a new award was made that the old one ceased to exist, and could not be left in force in any particular portion of the district in which the award was made. The last clause of the 1909 award, so far as the Poverty Bay district was _ concerned, adjourned the dispute until the next sitting of the Court in Gisborne, and the Court reserved the power to make a supplementary award. The Court had not since sat in Gisborne, and the old award being cancelled, there was no tailors’ award in force here. It was an important question, said Mr. Stock, and one that he doubted the Magistrate would take the responsibility of deciding, therefore he asked him, under section 18 of the amending Act, to cite a case for the Arbitration Court, as the matter was of great importance to master tailors.

In regard to the second point, there was nothing, supposing the 1906 award still existed, making a penalty for a breach by the apprentice. And, lastly, it was submitted, there could lie no apprenticeship, because no articles were entered into between Messrs. Rossbotham and Searle, and therefore there could be no breach. The Inspector, in regard to the first point, contended that the 1906 Act remained in operation until superseded, and he considered, as far as Gisborne was concerned, that the 1909 dispute was still before tlie Court, and had not superseded the old award. It. was further contended that no provision was made in the award, and after two months- service the apprentice became automatically hound, and did not require to sign indentures. His Worship said that as several important points had been raised, he would have to look into the matter, therefore decision would ho reserved. Mr. Stock: You may dismiss the case on other points raised, but the master tailors are very anxious that a case should he cited for the opinion of the Arbitration Court. His Worship (laughing): I don’t know that I should go fishing for the Union if I find other grounds for deciding the case. Mr. Coleman: This other point will have to be raised by independent proceedings then, in order to have the matter settled. His Worship: I will consider the matter. •