APPRENTICE RATIO.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20243, 1 May 1929, Page 16

APPRENTICE RATIO.

PLUMBING TRADE REDUCTION REQUEST MADE BY UNION. ASPECT OF UNEMPLOYMENT. Threa applications for the variation of conditions of apprenticeship in tho plumbing and gasfitting trade caino before tho Arbitration Court in Auckland yesterday. The union, through its secretary, Mr. J. Clark, sought to rcduco the number of apprentices in employment by making the proportion one apprentice to threo journeymen, instead of as at present, one to two journeymen..

Mr. Clark said that there were a large number of men out of employment in tho trade, and this was attributed to the largo number of apprentices, who wero swamping it. In 1928, 31 apprentices completed their time, and 25 or 26 of them were immediately discharged. Ho knew of a job on which there were four boys employed, and no journeymen. "If tho Court," said Mr Clark, "is going to perpetuate the joke that a plumber must always have a boy to carry his tools—" "It has lost the aspect of fun now," said His Honor. "You always tako it so seriously, Mr. Clark." Mr. Clark said that in 90 per cent, of cases, boys were working on jobs on their own account, with no journeymen with them.

Evidence was given by senior .apprentices,, who said that they were out of work because their employers had told them they had no work and no mbney for thern.

Mr. S. E. Wright, for tho employers, questioned Mr. Clark's statements, and said,that during last-year only, 12 boys had been taken on in the trade. Tho proportion of apprentices allowed here was lower now than in the other centres. The union asked for a further amendment giving the, apprenticeship committee power to order any apprentice living within 20 miles of the Technical School to attend classes, the employer to pay the .fees and the apprentice to refund the fees to the employer if he did not attend 70 per cent, of the classes.

Mr, Clark said there was difficulty in getting some of the employers to pay the technical class fees. Mr. Wright questioned whether any apprentices had been required to attend the classes.

Mr,. Clark said that Mr. Wright was sticking to the strict letter of. the law under which class fees were paid only when the apprentices had been required to attend. ' Mr,, Justice Frazer said that if Mr, Clark asked for an amendment making the employer responsible for tho fees whether the apprentice was ordered to attend or not, .the. Court would grant that, as it had done in other., cases.

The third application was from the Master Plumbers' asking power to make various deductions from wages for lost time. The Court reserved its decision ou all the applications.