UNUSUAL CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11190, 21 April 1922, Page 4

UNUSUAL CASE

AN ELECTRICIAN FINED JOURNEYMAN EMPLOYED AT APPRENTICE’S WAGE. BREACH OF AWARD PUNISHED. Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., yesterdny, John Jackson, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against James Stewart, electrician, Courtenay place, for a breach of the electrical award. “This is an unusual case, and the first of its kind to come before tho court,” said AD Jackson. The ciroumstances, said Air Jackson, were that the defendant had had in his employ a lad named Gardiner os an apprentice. This boy had been three years and three months in Stewart’s employ, when he had eat for an examination, obtained a linesman’s certificate, and elected to become a journeyman worker. This was provided for in the award, and the pay for a journeyman was 2s 3jd per hour. Gardiner and a number of others had been coached b.v their employer for the examination and went up and passed a few weeks later. When he went to his employer the man told him that he must serve the balance of his apprenticeship of four years and blnffed him into continuing, at his existing wage. The lad held on for a week or two and then took another appointment elsewhere. He was not hound to complete his term of service, and the man had committed a breach of the award. A worker could elect to become a journeyman and must be paid a journeyman’s rate. “BECAME A JOURNEYMAN.” Frederick Hubert Gardiner bore oub these facts. He had also sat for the London City Guild technologieal examination and passed that. 'Abont a fortnight after passing he obtained his wireman’s license and elected to become a journeyman. Defendant told him that he must finish his four years, and witness let the matter drop because he “knew that he would be sacked if he persisted.” . He considered himself at liberty to. leave the man’s service whenever he pleased. He denied that he had made any promise to hie employer that he would not elect to become a journeyman. When he had left to take up other work his employer had not insisted upon his completing the term of his apprenticeship. DEFENDANT’S EXPLANATION. John Jackson, Inspector of Awards, said that the explanation given by the defendant was that Gardiner had promised him before tbe examination that he would not decide to become a journeyman. Witness offered to take the matter to the Arbitration Court, hut defendant had declined, saying that be was prepared to fight the mattei before a magistrate. His Worship stated that in his opin> ion the system was an unsatisfactory one, and there should he some rJbori? in writing of a worker’s change of status. A fine of £1 and witness’s expenses was inflicted.