ARBITRATION COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18092, 19 October 1928, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTING IN TIMARU. A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held in Timaru yesterday. His Honour, Mr Justice Frazer, presided, and there were with him Messrs A. L. Monteith (Workers’ Representative), and Mr G. T. Booth (Employers’ Representative). SETTLEMENT REACHED. Bridget Conway, of County Clare, Ireland, proceeded against Anderson’s, Ltd., of Christchurch, for compensation for the death of her son, Michael Patrick Conway, who was killed at Timaru on October 9, 1926. Mr A. D. Mcßae, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that he was pleased to be able to state that a settlement had been arrived at. His Honour: “That is very satisfactory. The case has been a long standing one.” The proceedings were then struck out. APPLICATION WITHDRAWN. Messrs Symington and Burridge made application for exemption from the provisions of the Private Hotel Employees’ Award. The application was before the Court at its last sitting, when it was adjourned in order to allow the Inspector of Awards (Mr G. McKessar) to furnish a report to the Clerk of Awards, Christchurch. Mr R. A. Brookes, who appeared for the Union, said that he had had a talk with Mr Symington, who stated that he was prepared to stay under the Private Hotel Award. Mr Symington was rather sore concerning the competition in Geraldine, considering that the other houses in Geraldine could not accommodate more than 16 guests. The application was withdrawn. AN ORDER MADE, if An application was made to the Court to add Stanton Harjow, of Timaru, to the Retail Shop Assistants’ Award. Mr R. Orwin appeared in support of the application, and Mr A. D. McRae appeared for respondent.

Mr Orwin said that some little tfjne ago, Mr Harlow made application to the Magistrate’s Court tor exemption under the Shops and Offices' Act. In the course of the case, Mr Harlow mentioned that he had ap. assistant, whom he was paying 30/- a week. On inquiries being made, it was found that Harlow was not a party to the award. His business was chiefly that of a draper and fancy goods dealer. Mr Mcßae said that it would be that respondent was not a retailer.' He periodically conducted auction sales in the town, and although he employed a girl, she was kept more for clerical work than as an assistant. His Honour said that if Harlow wished to keep outside the award, he would either have to close hiß retail portion of the business, or else carry it on in separate premises. His Honour further explained the provisions of the award,, and Mr McRae, after conferring with respondent, intimated that he did not intend to pursue his opposition further. An order was then made adding respondent to the award. INTERPRETATION: ASKED FOR. ;

Application was made for an interpretation of the Electric Trades Apprenticeship Order. Mr G. . McKessar, who made the application, said that the question he desired to ask was whether the term

"the trade or industry to which this order shall apply is the electrical trade,” contained in the Canterbury Electrical Workers’ Apprenticeship Order, covered work of the electrical linesmen’s award. By that he desired to know whether a boy, apprenticed to the electrical trade, could assist a linesman, providing that there was a linesman’s assistant also employed doing purely . linesman’s work. It was contended that for an electrician to become thoroughly efficient, he must know the work of an electrical linesman.

Mr G. W. Morrison (engineer to the South Canterbury Power Board) explained to the Court that from time to time they had hoys who, if not apprenticed as electrical workers, would go through a blind alley, and when they had finished their time, they would not he apprenticed to anything. The idea was to be able to train the boys both as linesmen and electrical workers. If that was done, they would then have two strings to their bow.

. His Honour said he took it that before a man could become a ' senior maintenance officer, he must know something about faults. Mr G. D. Thurston, who appeared for the Union, said that they had been asked to jointly agree to an interpretation, but they would not do that, because they considered that the matter was one which should have gone to the Apprenticeship Com-

mittee in Christchurch, which Committee covered the whole of the Canterbury district. His Honour said that It would probably have been better for the matter to have gone before the Committee first. If the Committee desired to consider the matter, and- make any suggestions, then the Court was prepared to hold the matter over. After further argument, the Court, decided to refer the matter to the Committee for an expression of opinion, which would serve as a guide to the Court. REGISTRATION GRANTED. Application was made by the District Registrar of Apprentices, Oamnru (Mr S. E. McGregor), for a direction of the Court on a proposed contract of apprenticeship between William Sparks and Colin Jones. Mr I-I. J. S. Crater, of Oamaru, appeared for Sparks. The Inspector stated that Sparks advertised himself as a tankmaker and sheet metal worker. He did not employ a journeyman, and was de--irous of retaining the boy as an apprentice. His grounds for withholding registration were: (1) that the

employer was himself Incapable of teaching the trade; (2) that the class | of work done was not snch as would enable the boy to acquire a good knowledge of the trade. The Inspector gave evidence in support of his reasons for refusing registration. Mr Grater said that Sparks’s business had been steadily increasing, and although he had not sufficient work to warrant his employing a journeyman, he had sufficient tinsmithing and sheet metal work to entitle him to engage an apprentice. Sparks had been apprenticed to plumbers and tinsmiths and sheet metal workers some 2 5 years ago, and served liis time with them, learning every branch of the trades. Tankmaking was not his principal business. Sparks, in evidence, detailed the class of work which he undertook. His Honour said that they would treat the case as an appeal. The Registrar had erred on the right side in refusing registration, especially as there was no committee in Oamaru. The Court had had further facts placed before it than wore available to the Registrar, and they saw no reason why registration should not Le granted. The appeal would be allowed, and registration granted.