THE APPRENTICE QUESTION

Otago Witness, Issue 3231, 16 February 1916, Page 4

THE APPRENTICE QUESTION

ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARD. In the Magistrate's Court on the Bth, before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.. Inspector Browett sought to _ recover £lO penalties from the Otago Daily Times and Witness Newspapers Company for alleged breaches of the Typographical Award, in that, between September 14. 1915, and November 19,1915, the company employed Ronald M'Allen, a third-year apprentice compos.tor, at a wage of 15s per week, instead of 20s, as required by the award; also, that the company paid Alexander Anderson, a second-year apprentice compositor, between July 1, 1915, and December 14, 1915, at a wage of 10s per week, instead of 15s. Mr C. J. Payne appeared for the defendants. After hearing evidence, The Magistrate said that the wholo issue turned upon when these young fellows could be held to have been taken on as-appren-tices. An apprenticeship could not be set up until the relution of master and apprentice had been established, or until there was evidence showing an intention to defeat the award. Tho latter point did not, however, arieo in this case. It had been given in evidence that M'Allen went into the jobbing room some months before the date of the indenture, and that when he went there he was employed by the company at the same wage of 16s up to the time that he was told there was a vacancy for him as an apprentice, when he received the apprentice wage. It was shown also that up to that date tho company had a full complement of apprentices. These two points constituted evidence to show tly.t the company were acting in a bona fide manner. It had been alleged that these boys were doing work which was apprentice work. With regard to that matter he did not think it had been conclusively shown (except with regard to a small matter of type-setting) that there had been any work" done by the youths that ■could be called strictly apprentice work. He was of opinion with regard to M'Allen'e case that the relation of master and apprentice was set up at the time mentioned in the deed. With regard to Anderson, the question w 7 as when was there a contract that should be taken and accepted as an apprenticeship. The evidence was very contradictory, but he was not disposed to accept Mrs Anderson's before Mr Harris's. Mr Harris's evidence was certainly the evidence that ought to bo accepted. According to him it was evident that these boys went there with a view of becoming apprentices when there was a vacancy. That was duly conveyed to them, and they were apprenticed when the vacancies occurred. With regard to the work (setting type), he did not think that this affected the present position, for if it was done it was done without direct authority, perhaps thoughtlessly, or perhaps by the boy in his dedro to get on. It had not been shown conclusively that the boys had been put on work whose nature would justify the court in saying that the relation of master and apprentice had been entered upon before the dates mentioned in the deeds. To establish that there woidd have to be _sueh evidence na wonld show intention to defeat thc_ award as it boro upon apprentices. It did not

appear that there was any such intention in this case. Judgment would be given for the defendants. Mr Browett asked permission to appeal, since it was important to determine whether when the company commenced teaching a boy thev did not undertake the duty attaching to apprenticeship. The Magistrate refused leave to appeal, since it was purely a question of fact. He remarked, however, that it was a matter that should be kept in view in the new award. Mr Browett: The point we want to settle is whether a boy automatically becomes an apprentice by being employed at the trade in the jobbing room.