BROKEN CONTRACT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 29 May 1930, Page 4

BROKEN CONTRACT

THE APPRENTICES ACT A WRONGFUL DISMISSAL (By Telegraph—Press Association) CHRISTCHURCIT, 27tli May. The Magistrate's^-.Court has no power to reconsider the facts of a case heard by the Arbitration Court, and is bound by the decision of that Court, according to a reserved judgment given to-day by Mr E. D. Moslev, S.M. The plaintiff was Kenneth Birt M'Lelland, of Christchurch, a motor mechanic's aprentice, who claimed from Tench Bros., Ltd., the sum of £SO for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff was apprenticed in 1925, and iii the. fifth year of his apprenticeship was discharged by the defendants for alleged dishonesty. Plaintiff appealed to the Arbitration Court under Section 15 of the Apprentices Act, 1923, against his dismissal, and the appeal was allowed. On 29th November, 1929, the plaintiff claimed that he should have been reinstated by the defendants, and claimed £37 10s for loss- of wages and £lfi 10s general damages for wrongful dismissal.

The original hearing was on 13th February, when judgment was reserved. In delivering his judgment, the Magistrate said that he was reluctant in coming to the decision to which he had been forced, but in bis opjnion the effect of the decision of the Arbitration Court on the appeal, of the apprentice was that it was unreasonable for the employers to dismiss him. This was made by the provisions of Section 15 of the Apprentices Act final and conclusive. On th'o question of dismissal it was, therefore, a claim by an appretice against an emnloyer who had wrongfully discharged him.

"I find that there is in existence a contract of apprenticeship under which the master engages to take the apprentice as such in his trade at motor engineer for a term of five years from 31st January, 1925. It is a condition of the contract that the master pays to the apprentice wages at the rate of £2 5s a week during the fifth year of his apprenticeship. The master has by his own act broken the terms of the contract, and must be prepared to pay for such breach. The defendants having refused to reinstate the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to wages* as claimed (£37 10s). as the period at which plaintiff is entitled to become a journeyman has '->een postponed for five months owinc to the wrongful act of the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled to and is accordingly allowed by way of general damages the sum of £l2 10s. Judgment for the plaintiff for £SO, with costs."