"NOTHING TO HIDE," SAYS HUIE

NZ Truth, Issue 1305, 18 December 1930, Page 5

"NOTHING TO HIDE," SAYS HUIE

Application For Cancellation of Apprentices' Contracts Described As " Impudent and Insolent "

"BINDING AS MARRIAGE CONTRACT"

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.)

The impenetrable of silence which was drawn over the sensational sale of the Auckland Sun Newspaper to the rival evening daily, the Auckland Star, or, more fully, New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., m September last was pulled aside for a brief interval m the course of cross-examination of Edward Chalmers Huie, managing director of the "Sun," m the Arbitration Court. In an endeavor to have the contracts of its apprentices cancelled the company unsuccessfully applied to the ; Arbitration Court, Mr. Justice Frazer deciding that on legal grounds the application must fail.

iiMiiiiiiiuiniiuiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiii

MORIS fortunate than the rest of the "Sun" employees, the apprentices were protected by a contract under the Apprentices Act. The application was opposed on behalf of the boys by Mr. J. J. Sullivan. ... The apprentices concerned were Malcolm Kelsey Gillies, Alexander Stockwell, Alexander Martin Warnock, Francis John Jalfon and Wallace Rea. The grounds of the application Avere that the Sun Newspapers Litd. had relinquished business m Auckland, and it had been found impossible to transfer the apprentices to another employer to complete their apprenticeship. Further, it was stated that the question of cancelling the contracts had been referred .to the Printing Trades Apprenticeship Committee, which had. decided that it was a matter for the Court to deal; witlf.;: Opening the case for the Company, Mr. Northcroft said the 'Sun; Newspapers Ltd.. went out of business m Auckland m September. The apprentices, however, had still been .receiving their wages, although there was no work for them to do. "As 'a matter of fact," said Mr, Northcroft, "when 'the business was sold, the boys still came down, sat about, and played cards. . . Mr. Sullivan: Petty! Petty! . Mr. Northcroft: It isn't petty. It's the facts, which must be given. His Honor: Well, you can't altogether blame them for that, seeing: that there was no work for them to do. * Mr. Northcroft: No, sir. Perhaps not. But on one occasion when one of them was asked to go a message, he went off to the Labor Department and asked if he should do so. Proceeding, Mr. Northcroft submitted that every effort had been made to have the boys taken over by other employers, but m vain." His Honor: Suppose we take that for granted. The mere fact that there is slackness m trade ... is. pot sufficient ground for the cancellation* of a - con- I

-Mr. Northcroft:, We offer three months' salary. . ' Mr. Sulliyan: This.is the first ' intimation that Ihe "Sun" ...was *..-. : prepared;, to .'make ';sn. offer:. to i't.HeTnIn his address in 'reply, Mr. Northcroft submitted that to compel the company to keep the boys on its payroll and m idle- ______________ ness, at 'as present, wuold be altogether wrong, lt was not fair to suggest that the Company w a s trying to evade its legal , obligations; wh at was desired was to end a state of affairs that - was undesirable for all concerned. In giving judgment, His Honor said that the section of the Apprentices Act which empowered the Court to cancel a contract under certain circumstances, was worded very widely, but common law was very clear on the point. * "I have remarked, perhaps a. little facetiously, that an apprenticeship contract i.s just' as binding as a marriage contract," said his Honor, "but it has a big element of seriousness. It may not be 'until- de^th do us part," but it' operates rigidly for a

number of years. It is a binding personal contract. If there is slackness of trade, an employer is entitled to apply fpr relief by the transfer of the boy to, another employer, but slackness of trade is not a sufficient reason for cancelling the contract.", His Honor continued that the Court was satisfied that the Company and the Apprenticeship Committee had done their .best to find positions for the lads, but it was on purely legal grounds that the case must be judged, and on these grounds the Court was unable to^grant the application. "It appears clear that the company broke its contract when it ceased to teach the. boys their trade," continued His Honor. "The mere fact that it continued to pay the boys' wages dpes not alter that breach. ' "Fossibly I should not make this comment, but I can't help thinking that the best thing for the firm to have done would be to discharge the boys and say, 'We have done our best to find employment for you, but we are unable to find it, and we are compelled to discharge you, and we, are alfeo prepared to discuss the payment of a sum of money as damages.' Possibly, it would have been better to have settled the matter out of court. As the matter stands, the Court is bound by the Act, ahd on purely legal grounds, it must refuse the applica r tion."