DISMISSAL OPPOSED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20628, 29 July 1930, Page 13

DISMISSAL OPPOSED.

APPEALS by apprentices.

SEVERAL YEARS WASTED.

yOUTH UNSUITED TO HIS WORK.

r Aooe»l 9 3CVorn ' ;, rP rel,tices against ..J discharge by their employers were A by tho Arbitration Court yesterday. competency and ability of a 'uioiwr' 3 apprentice, Harold George r" kes, who had been discharged by his oloyer, * ero in I» cslion in ,lia nppcal TUokes, who had been dismissed on tho «nd of inefficiency and incapability by C employer, Patrick James Sheehan, plimiber, of Dcvonport (Mr. S. C. ike), appealed a K a,nst tliat <lc0131on ; ■\[ r J Clark, secretary of tho Plumbers' Vnion, appeared in support of the appeal. Mr Clarko said the boy had been apprentice* on Juno 8, 1925, for six years, j t was soon apparent that he did not the necessary mechanical ability. Ho could not even boro a hole, hammer a nail f aw a piece of wood. After a year his «npioyer sent for his father and put the osition before him, but as a result ho reed t° g ivo 1110 J:,O - v ' A Il '^ ier fr'al--1 also proved unsuccessful, but. tho father eventually refused to cancel the contract and advised his employer to "hammer it into him. " A Born Salesman."

'Pus employer, after further trial, informed the father that it was quite impossible to do anything with the boy, continued Mr. Clarke. Tho boy was of excellent character and had tried his best. hut he ™ nld nevcr nial:c his livi,,g 35 a plumber. Tb* employer, P. J. Sheehan, said tho fcov Brookes seemed to bo quito useless with his hands and witness could not get a start with him. Witness formed tho opinion that tho lad was a born salesman of motor-cars. He produced samples of ungle irons made by Brookes to show that his work last February was much inferior to similar work he had done years previously. Many instances of the. lad's failBra in bis work were quoted. "He is as honest as the day. I vrould trust that boy with £1000," added witness. Other evidence of tho boy's backwardness rn certain aspects of his work wns given by a technical schoolmaster and by » builder.

Mr. J. Clark stressed tho fact thai afier careful investigation the apprenticeship committee had refnsed t<". cancel the coutrstv Ho submitted that in the slack times of the last- two years the boy had not had sufficient opportunity of learning the trade. Mechanical Ability Lacking.

Brookes' gave evidence on his own behalf and was cross-examined by Mr. Clark. The lad insisted that he wanted to be a plumber, apart altogether from tis father's wishes. "We are afraid that if we were to allow His apprentice's appeal we should not bo doing him a kindness," said His Honor, in announcing that the appeal wa3 disallowed. There was no suggestion of misconduct at all and obviously there was no ill-feeling in this case. It was. a great pity that tho employer had not known that ho could terminate tho contract if the apprentice turned out to be inefficient and incapa.ble of learning tho trade, but hj« had discovered that only recently. It sppeared to be a case of a perfectly decent, well-behaved lad v<bo was willing »nd industrious, but who lacked the liocessarv mechanical ability to enable him to master such a trade as plumbing. The Court much regretted that the boy had crested as much as four and a-half years. Case from Birkenhead.

William Thomas Simpson,_ plumber's apprentice, appealed against his dismissal by his employer, Robert. Raymond Kidd, plumber, of Birkenhead (Mr. Hubble). Mr. Hubble said that as a matter of /act, the apprentice went away himself, bat counsel would admit that for tho purposes of the appeal ho had been dismissed. The apprenticeship contract wa3 entered into in March, 1925. The employer did not say tho youth had been incompetent, but that, he had been careless and unreliable. Last August, work feeing slack, Mr. Kidd lent Simpson for r. ;week or two to another employer. Ho did not return to Mr. Kidd lor reasons Mr. Kidd did not know Mr. Kidd later learned that Simpson had gone on to ether employers and hau applied for a transfer, which was not granted. On April 15 Simpson presented himself iD the middle of the morning, saying he wa« readv to work for Mr. Kidd again, but Mr. Kidd naturally told him be had been away too long. Mr. J. Clark, for the Plumbers' Union. >aid the apprentice declared that there had been a dispute over wages and he had been discharged. Simpson gave evidence lhat he_ understood his employer discharged him last August. "A Good Deal of Looseness." His Honor said the Court had certain amount of doubt about, the case, because the trouble had arisen through Mr. Kidd adopting an irregular procedure in transferring the boy temporarily without consulting the committee. There had leen a good deal of lonseress on both sides. Tho Court did not iike penalising a lad who was in tho last few months_ of his apprenticeship, and it wished to give him the benefit «>f what doubt thero was. The Court would make no order for payment of iince Ibo boy left his employer, but from now onward ho must bo treated as having uMiim.d his apprenticeship with his original employer.

"Aa far as this case is concerned wo Are only a rubber stamp." said His Honor. "Wo must allow the appeal." The was that in v. ijicb A. G. Prentice appealed against, his dismissal by '•Arthur Ficde-io: Ha-leman, plumber (Mr. Nowhery) Mr. Ne'.vbeiv t-aid (hire was nothing against the boy whatever, but the position was that, his employer was unable to find work for him. Mr. Uazleman had done all he could to g"t the hoy transferred, but without success. Ho had kept him on as long as ho coukl, but there was £2O owing the !>y for v.ages for (he nonpayment of which his employer had been fined. Counsel was :-iniply appearing in deference (o tlie Court.. His Honor r-aid that if the employer conld not find work for the hoy he could allow himself to be proceeded against f°r damages for breach of the apprenticeship contract. In answer !o Hi.. Court, Mr. J. Clark, *?cretary of the Plumbers' Union, snid 'here was n -. of an opening for an apprentice a* prc.'-fut.