POWER BOARD FINED

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12093, 21 March 1925, Page 7

POWER BOARD FINED

WHAT IS SKILLEt LABIUR LABOURERS OVERLAP ON JOURNEYMEN’S WORK. “UNDER RATE” WORKERS. A case which will ho - of special interest to power boards, particularly those which have undertaken house wiring and similar work, came before the Arbitration Court yesterday, at whioh Mr Justice Frazer (presided', with Messrs Scott and Hiram Hunter (employers and workers’ representatives respectively) .

Mr N. V. Dyett, Inspector of Awards in Masterton, proceeded against the Wairarapa Electric Power Board claiming a £5 penalty for breach of award, the allegation being that the board failed to pay the rate of wages prescribed by the Wellington district electric workers’ award. Mr W. A. W. Grenfell .represented) the hoard. Mr Dyett said the charge rose out of the employment of a number ' of youths without them being apprenticed. As they were not apprenticed' the claim was that they should be paid Journeymen's wages. The case was' brought to enable the board 1 to explain the difficult' position it was in, and to secure a ruling from the court. A number of youths were paid at the rate of 30s per week, and were employed in* the same manner as apprentices. Mr Grenfell said the youths were kept at the elementary work of wiremen, and; were not taught, as the apprentice* were, anything more advanced. Tho souths under question did certain of the work of apprentices, hut not all of it.

ASSISTANTS, NOT JOURNEYMEN. Mr Dyett said the youths were not holders of under-rate workers’ permits. An agreement had been signed by the youths admitting that no contract of apprenticeship was being entered into. Nineteen youths had been employed at one time. There were now nine, to oix•teen wiremen and six apprentices. The youths were termed assistants. It would be submitted that as the youth* were not covered by the description of journeymen, apprentices, or under-ratc workers, and the board refused to consider them as apprentices, then they were entitled to the minimum wage prescribed'for journeymen. Mr Grenfell contended the youths were merely assistants and labourers, and were used to facilitate work, carrying materials, holding ladders, etc. The board employed a good number of apprentices, and the board had shown its sincerity in facilitating their training. The hoard knew the present abnormal demand for wiremen and electrician# would not continue, ahd later there would be few places into which the apprentices could be transferred. The board had borrowed £260,000, and had to complete its wiring as soon as possible.

Mr Justice Frazer: AH we have to decide is what the position of these boys is.” ASSISTING IN WIRING WORK. The secretary of the company said the board could not have completed its contracts had it employed l all the youths as apprentices. Their work would not continue long enough to enable a large number of apprentices, to be employed. The youths were paid 30s weekly, and apprentices 13s a week in the first year,' and- £1 in'the second. C. J. P. Drewett,engineer of the board, said the apprentices were doing work that was quits different from that of the assistants, a fid more advanced. The assistants were merely to help the Journeymen. They were assisting the journeymen in all the -wiring work. Mr Justice Frazer: That rjgema* to settle it. They are doing the <voi4? ifientioned in the award. For the department it was urged that if the board was to bo at liberty to'employ thase men in the way they desired) there would be no protection whatsoever. Mr Grenfell argued that it was contrary to economy that skilled .workers should be employed to do work which the youth or labourer could perform. These youths had only been employed in unskilled Work, but if they were to be entitled to journeymen’s wages there would 1 be a substantial bill for the Power Board., MEASURE OF JUSTIFICATION. After having, retired to consider the. case, His Honour said the Wairarapa Power Board was charged with a breach of the award in employing certain youths and failing to pay them journeymen’s wages. It was not suggested that they were apprentices but employees. The defence was the men Were; employed on unskilled wprk. Had they been employed in carrying messages, tools, holding ladders or in work of a general nature, there would have been no breach, but they were engaged in work—perhaps not of a highly skilled nature—which was the work of the trade. They were doing the less skilled part of the journeymen’s work. It would be absurd to argue that they were worth journeymen’s wages, and the court was faced with two. alternatives, to apprentice them or treat, them as journeymen. TOO BJG AN OBLIGATION.

The hoard had not sufficient work in prospect to undertake so many apprentices for aftperiod of five years, and the obligation would have been a serious one,, and they came to the conclusion that they could not pay them journeymen’swages. On the other hand the board did not avail itself of the opportunity of going to the authority provided by law and obtaining a permit to employ a certain number of “underrate” workers, workers who were not fully competent or by reason of age or infirmity. The court felt that no serious objection could have been raised to so doing. The board found itself faced with a rush of work, and was forced into the business of house wiring to cope with the situation. There was some justification for their action, and journeymen employed by private ‘contractors were under no hardship because they were fully employed. Although the employment of these men was doing no harm to anyone the board had failed to explore till methods by not trying to arrange for “under-rate” workers. It was obvious that these men had been doing work which overlapped on the journeymen’s work, and there had been a breach of the award which up to a certain point was excusable. A NOMINAL PENALTY. While satisfied that a breach had been committed the court did not for a moment suggest that those boys were worth journeymen’s wages. 2s 2d per hour, but bad the board gone to the department a reasonable wage might have been arrived at. The case did not call for a heavy penalty, for it was somewhat unusual, and possibly the board did not fully understand what it was doing. They did not even suggest that those boys had been done an injustice, because in the documents they signed it was clear that they were

not apprentices and were not being taught a trade. A- nominal penalty of £2. with £2 15s 8d costs, would be imposed. Mr Grenfell said that in the circumstances there would he nine assistants who would; have to .he dismissed or for whom permits would have to he obtained. 1 His Honour disagreed that they would have to be dismissed, but as the court had indicated a course already he would say nothing more. ' Mr Grenfell; We appreciate the reasonable manner in which the inspector has taken these proceedings and the careful consideration given hy the court.