ENGINEERING TRADES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20626, 26 July 1930, Page 11

ENGINEERING TRADES.

APPRENTICESHIP PROBLEMS.

CALCULATING PROPORTIONS.

ATTITUDE OF THE COURT.

Tho Arbitration Court yesterday declined tho onus of deciding whether or not the proportion of apprentices to journeymen was correct, whenp applications for approval of apprenticeship contracts in (he engineering trade were submitted to it-

In disposing firstly of an application for tho approval of an apprenticeship order entered into between Mason Brothers' Engineering Company, Ltd., and Raymond Hoy Blood, Mr. Justice Frazcr said the Court could not npprovo of tho contract. It could only deal with tho matter indirectly and indicate its opinion on general lines. Tho Court was only concerned with the apprenticeship order as it stood and llio registrar would he directed to exclude men who had not served apprenticeship to tho trade and to investigate the position of tho employers to ascertain whether or not they were substantially engaged in boilermaking work, and to grant or withhold the registration accordingly. A discrepancy in the returns furnished to the Apprenticeship Committee was complained of by Mr. R. F. Barter, union advocate, when an jppeal was made regarding tho apprenticeship of It. H. McRae to the firm of A. and T. Burt, Ltd. He said that when tho first return was received the proportion of journeymen to apprentices was shown as 15 to 16 respectively, but later as 15 to 18.

His Honor said that in calculating the proportion of apprentices to journeymen the branch or branches of tho trade to which the apprentice was apprenticed must be taken by themselves and the journeymen in other branches of the trade must be excluded from tho compulation. The engineering trado had a number of different branches and when an order lumped tliem together it would appear at first sight that tho proportion must bo calculated over the whole number as an indivisible unit.

Another clause of the order, however, made it clear that the different branches of the trade had to be treated separately for the purpose of apprenticing lads to one or more of those branches. Common sense, also, necessitated the branches being considered separately. On the figures as submitted, it was clear that the firm was entitled to onci extra apprentice, but not to the throe in respect of whom appeals had been lodged. The appeal in Mcßae's case would be allowed, but the appeals in the cases of K. Bridson and K. Massey would be dismissed.