ARBITRATION COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13666, 7 August 1908, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

■; INDENTURED APPRENTICES. . Mr Justice Sim has delivered judgment in t-he.-Timaru case of the Inspector ioi Awards v. O'Brisn and Beaton, which involves an important point in reference to the employment of apprentices. The respondents are alleged., to has T e committed a breach of the Timaru carpenters' award by employing two apprentices without having them indentured. The award, which embodies an agreement made by the parties, came into force on September 1, 1906, and provides that apprentices are to he bound for five years! At the date when the award came into force the respondents had two apprentices •in their employ, and neither of them had been bound as apprentices in writing. There is no saving clause in the award, of existing with apprentices, and it became the duty of the employers who had unindeiitui'ed' apprentices to have them : properly bound within a reasonable thrie a:fter the award, came into force. It was contended by the respondents that as the term of apprenticeship is fixed for/ -five years, both apprentices would be oter nineteen years of ago before the end of the term, consequently the indentures would be unlawful and void under Section 9 of the Master and Apprentice Act, 1865. It was further contended that as the award in the present case required the respondents to do something that has been made unlawful by statute it was invalid and unenforceable so far as it applied to oases like tlio present one. The question was whether the jtirisliction 'of the Court; in connection; with the employment of • apprentices is controlled bv the Master and -Apprentice Act, 1865. The Court certainly had jurisdiction to deal with tfie subject of the employment, in. any industry of apprentices . under the -Industrial; Conciliation and Arbitration .Act, 1905, Mr Justice Chapman, in the case of the Inspector of Awards v. Savage (Bascand's case), adjudged ' that an indenture is not unlawful, but k merely unenforceable after the apprentice reaches the age of nineteen years. The Court agreed with this view. The Court therefore, held that the award is binding, ori the respondents and is enforceable against, them. .. They had committed a breach of award by not having the two workers apprenticed within a reasonable time after the award crime into., force: No penalty will be imposed if the. omission js remedied w'thouH delay. The term of apprenticeship wiir be five years, but the parties are entitled to: reckon - this from the . respective dates on' wliicli°ttpprentices first entered ,the services ofviespo'ndenls: Therespondents were ordered; to pay the Inspector's disbursements-for the fees of the Court. Mr Emslie ■ appeared for th=> Inspector, Mr Kinnerney -for O'Brien, and Mr Sargent for Beaton. :