GIRLS DISMISSED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7077, 15 March 1910, Page 10

GIRLS DISMISSED

OHARGB AGAINST E. HANNAH AND CO. THE QUESTION OV APPRENTICES. ARGUMENT TOE AND AGAINST. A case of considerable importance to the boot manufacturing business throughout New Zealand was heard at; the Arbitration Court yesterday. Air j Justice Sim presided, and associated with, hiin were Aleßsrs W. Scott and J. A. MeCullough, cmiiloyers' and workers' representatives respectively. The ca.se was one in which Walter Newton, Inspector of Awards, claimed to recover HlO from E. Hannah and Co., Ltd., boot manufacturers, Wellington, as a penalty for a ■ breach of the New Zealand Federated Boot Trade award concerning female operatives. The statement o£ claim set out that the defendants did, on January 12th, 1910, dispense with the services of a female apprentice named Florence Lebhtrz, and did not procure her another employer carrying: on business within a reasonable distance of the defendants* piaco at business. * , itr D. M. Findlay appeared for the inspector of Awards, anu Mr Sterrett, with him Mr Stout, for defendant company. APPRENTICES DISMISSED. In opening his case Mr Findlay said the object of the proceedings was not bo oijtain accumulative pana.ties with regard to the Breaches, but to ascertain wjiother a breach hud occurred. A number of apprentices employed by K. U.mnah and Company had received notice purporting to terminate tueir en-Kuß'-iuolit lii December last. The jloi.ce, dated December 16th, 1909. was asloUows: — In accordance with clause 12 of the award you are hereby given notice your employment will terminate on December 23rd, 1909, at 5 p.m. On- Monday, January 3rd, 1910, the factory wall reopen at 8 v-m., when you may obtain employaent at present rotes and conditiums. jChe notice* was apparently given to" all apprentices working,- in, the factory under the award. Some of the apprentices, it Beemed, desired an extended holiday at Christmas and New Year. The- firm, apparently, wauendeavioTiriiig to afvoid 'the payment of wages they would otherwise, have been compelled to pay. The notice was evidently under section 12 of the awar-1, which applied to apprentices. Under that alause twenty-four hours' notice could be given by the employer to the n«orker, or vice versa, in regard to the termination of employment. Only a portion of the apprentices desired a ] holiday, but all were dismissed. Tha offer that they might find employment in January was not in compliance with the provisions of the award. All that waa said in the notice was "On Monday the fiactory will be reopened, when you may obtain employment at present rates itift conditions." The action of the company, rightly or wrongly, was to avoid payment > of wages to apprentices an a holiday. There was absolutely no doubt about this. The real reason for dismissing the apprentices in this way was on account of their being entitled to tb« benefit of the award, which stipulated for wages on holidays. ' Ho thought he would be able to show that that was the only reason. The hrm did not notify the inspector of the rea. son for dismissal, although the actual was notified. WANTED A HOLIDAT Charles E. Aldridge, Inspector of Factories, after' giving formal evidence, said he had discussed the matter wth the head of tho firm, who said that the girls were put oft because most of theni ■wanted a holiday, and that they would not come back to work during the holidays. Witness replied that it would bo necessary for the firm to procure the girls another employer, the answer being that the firm would take them 'back after the holidays. W. L. Newton. Inspector of Awards, said he had called upon Hannah and Co.'s representative in company with the previous witness. He had found thac a number of the apprentices nad not signed the petition asking for holidays. About eight had not signed Uio list, the names dl whom be gave. Some had not been -asked to sign, whilo three had refused to sign. In August last, the girls were tieated as apprentices, and again last January. Mr Skerrett: Did you not as a result of your inquiries ascertain that none of these girls was bound either by indenture or otherwise to learn tho trade for a stated period P '. . Witness admitted that none of the apprentices waa bound except by reason, ot the provisions of the award.. UNDERRATE WORKERS. A. 11. Cooper, formerly president of the union concerned, said there was provision for underrate workers in the award. He was not aware that there were any such working in Hannah's factory. Inspector Aldridge, recalled, said no permits had been issued to E. Hannah and Co. in respect to underrate workers under the award quoted. Florence Blanchheld said she worked for R. Hannah and Co. during tho latter part of last year and also in January last. She was an apprentice, and had been employed for six months. Witness had taken a list round to most of the girls for signature in respect to obtaining a fortnight's holiday. There were several who would not sign. The foreman wanted a holiday, and was anxious for the girls to sign the list because if they did not get the leave ho too would not get it- The outcome waa the-notices

to all the girls dismissing thorn for eleven days. Witness earned XI a week. TWENTY-FOUR HOURS' NOTICE. To Mr Skorrett -. Witness had given li. Hannah and Co. twenty-four hours" notico of her desire to leave. Such notices were always accepted, the girls considering they were entitled to Itflv* on such notice. Witness did not want the holiday, although .she had taken round the- petition. Lily Hence, an apprentice employed at the present timo by -Messrs It. Hannah and Co., said she was ' not asked whether she wanted a holiday at Christinas time. Witness received 10s a week. She had received a notice stating her services would not be required during Christmas time, but that she could come buck in January. To Mr Skerrett: Witness was not bound to learn a trade at the factory. This concluded the case for the department. TWO KINDS OF APPRENTICES. In opening the defence Mr Skerrett discussed the clauses of the award in detail. Ho argued that there were two classes of apprentices. There- were, in the first place, the indentured or contractual apprentices who were bound to serve for live, vears. The employer was bound to teach this class of apprentice the trade. The others, the quasi-appren-ticed, were not indentured; there was no obligation on the part of the employer to leach them the trade, and they could leave or be dismissed on 21 hours' notice. All those concerned m the present action were of the latter class, and the defendants had the right to act as they had done. C. J. Ward, factory manager, employed by respondent company, said that none of the girls wore taken on on the understanding that they should bo taught a trade. There was no single instance where award rates were paid. J. he amount was considerably more than stipulated. It had been the practice, before the award was made and after to terminate employment on 2-i hours notice. This applied Hannahs iactorv and other factories as well. Defendants had no indentured apprentices. There were indentured apprentices in New Zealand, however. He had not seen the petition for holidays, although, he had known about it. THREE CLASSES OF WORKERS. Mr Findlay contended that there were only three classes of workers under the award—jonrney women.entitled to full pay, underrate workers and apprentices. All the provisions of clause If applied to all apprentices, whether bound or not. the defendants were on the horns of a dilemma, for if these girls were not apprentices thev were not entitled to pay them less than award wages, as they had mot obtained underrate permits: The girls might have heen paid more than the award wages for apprentices, but thev had been treated in every wav 'as apprentices and had been called so *iu the returns sent by the defendant firm to the Lui>our Department. The president said the Court would liko time to consider its decision. He mentioned that the apprenticeship clauses in the award (which was origmallv an agreement between the parties) were an amalgamation of the Court's apprenticeship clauses and some provisions of the old Canterbury award. ANOTHER. CLAIM. Inspector Newton also claimed to recover .£lO for another hreach of the same award, in that the defendants did on January 12th, 1910, discharge the same female apprentice and failed to advise the Inspector of Factories of such discharge and the reason for it. ' As this case was dependent upon the former one, it was allowed to stand over until the Court has given judgment on the former.