DISMISSED CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20124, 18 April 1928, Page 3

DISMISSED CASE

APPRENTICE’S APPEAL UNJUST DISCHARGE ALLEGED. A battery of questions was ' levelled for t)ie greater part of yesterday afternoon at a defendant employer by Mr Louis Cohen in the Arbitration Court, presided over by his Honour Mr Justice Frazer. The case was an appeal by Mervyn Copley, apprentice (Mr Cohen) against S. J. Sullivan, Ltd., furniture makers (Mr A. D. Brodie) for dismissal on the grounds of incompetence and disobedience. “The grounds of rhe appeal are that the firm had m t just grounds to make a dismissal,” remarked his Honour. Air Brodie: The apprenticeship and dismissal are admitted and the grounds were stated on January 20 in a letter to Copley. The firm employs some 30 hands and discipline is necessary. We are not denying that Copley is able to do the work as well as tho average employee if he wishes—but he does not wish. Ho has been detected Kte for work frequently and Air Sullivan and his foreman are of the opinion that the boy is careless, and is a loiterer and malingerer. “Willing, But Slovenly.” Samuel John Sullivan, managing director of the company, said the apprenticeship and dismissal were admitted. Copley was dismissed in December, and came back after the holidays, but was finally dismissed on January 4. Copley, who was in his third year of apprenticeship, was willing, but was slovenly, and did not promise to become proficient in cabinet making, which was an artistic business. {Slovenly work could not be sold. Witness made complaints continually, but there was no improvement. The lad was willing, but he had not the ability to become skilful. Disobedience was really the chief ground for* dismissal, and several complaints had, in addition, been received from the foreman owing to the lad arriving late. When the lad was told to make up time afterwards he did not do so. To Air Cohen witness said that provision for instruction was chat the bay had been given a bench and was under the foreman.

Air Cohen: But your foreman is down on the lower floor all his time, isn’t he Witness: Tart of his time. Air Cohen; Ninety per cent, of his time. Witness: No, fifty per cent. Question of Complaint. Air Cohen: When have you complained to tho boy’s parents? Witness: Towards the end of last year to Mrs Copley—in December or probably in November. Air Cohen: Is that right? Airs Copley will swear that the only time you spoke to her was on January 4, and then you said the boy had been suspended. f Witness admitted under questioning that disobedience was the chief reason for dismissal. When the boy had been found from his bench he had said on several occasions that other men had called him. Witness had tested the excuses, and had found them incorrect, but had not actually argued the truth with Copley and the men. Readymade. In a comparison of works produced in Court witness admitted to Air Cohen that the specimen of a third-year apprentice ’s work shown was made from heart timber for the purpose of use in the case. Air Cohen read a letter sent to the Inspector of Awards on January 7, notifying the dismissal of Copley and produced minutes of a meeting of the Apprenticeship Committee concerning the dismissal, m which the witness was recorded ro have said that he “would see what could be done with Copley” under certain terms. Reading from tho report, Air Cohen stressed that Sullivan had stated that apprentices’ wages, in his opinion, were too high and they did not pay an employer. Arthur E. Ballinger, foreman, in his evidence, attributed Copley’s dismissal to idleness, disobedience and roughness of work. He admitted that the specimen of a third-year apprentice’s work shown in Court had been specially made.

To Air Cohen: I did not wa-te any time with the boy—he wasn’t worth

In face of questioning, witness maintained that Copley had received instruction in his work. “He was always coining to me about jobs,” he said. Further lengthy questioning of the witness referred chiefly co the proficiency of apprentices at various stages of experience. An Important Matter. “This is a very important matter, and it is of the highest consequence that, an apprenticed boy get a fair run,” declared Air Cohen, in opening the other side of the case. “It must be considered that the foreman on his own admission held antipathy toward tl • boy.” E. W. F. Gohns, registrar of appr nfici's, said that on January 4 Sullivan rang up and asked for an interview concerning Copley. He said that Copley was not worth the extra five shillings due owing co Copley passing an examination, and asked for a meeting of the Apprenticeship Committee, where he would apply for an increase of the term of apprenticeship by six months and for the holding of the increase in wages for a similar period. Prior to the meeting Sullivan wrote stating that tho boy had been ’dismissed. Th : s was the first intimation of dismissal and there had been no mention of unpunctuality and the only mention of disobedience was that the boy had left his bench.

Beatrice Hilda Copley said thac January 4 was the first time, since her son was apprenticed, that she saw Sullivan. Lateness lad boon mentioned and Sullivan had said that he did no'c consider the boy worth tho five shillings rise in wages. Harvey Robinson, cabinet maker, employed with Sullivan’s Ltd. up to about a year ago, considered from his observations that Copley was eager at his work, and H. A. L. Dixon, also employed with the firn, up to Christmas

Eve, considered the boy’s work to be as good as the average. Alervyn C. Copley, stated that he had learnt his work more by observation than anything else and declared that the foreman had frequently found fault with him. He was rebuked for being late only two or three times and was as punctual as other apprentices. When he heard that he was co bo dismissed, Sullivan said he was not going to let the Apprenticeship Committee dictate to him.

Evidence on work was heard at length from Copley, and his Honour, after a brief adjournment with his associates, announced that the ease was clearly one in which there were faults on both sides, but one outstanding fact was that the boy had not been properly trained. It was not seen that the boy should be responsible for a stale of affairs which was not entirely his own fault, and because of that, tho appeal would be allowed, Copley to be reinstated from the date of his dismissal.

In asking for costs, Mr Cohen referred to the keen interest in the case in Wanganui and poinced out how closely apprenticeship matters were followed. Costs to the amount of £5 5s were allowed.