QUESTION OF CONTRACT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 153, 30 June 1934, Page 10

QUESTION OF CONTRACT

EMPLOYER AND APPRENTICE HEARING BY FULL COURT. [ Per Press Association. ] WELLINGTON, June 29. The Full Court commenced the hearing of a suit arising out of an apprenticeship contract entered into between George Henry Burton, an apprentice, of Lower Hutt, and the Precision Engineering Company (Wellington). This contract was entered into on July 8, 1929, when there was in existence an award dealing with the engineering trade to which the boy was apprenticed. The contract was drawn under the Apprentices Act, 1923, and incorporated as its basis the provisions of the Act and of the general apprentices order made by the Arbitration Court governing the conditions of employment. After the contract had been in existence for some time the Court of Arbitration cancelled the award governing the particular industry. On proceedings being taken on similar contracts in the Court of Arbitration it was ruled that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matters as the Act of 1923 did no any longer apply to such contracts as there was then no award or apprentices’ order in existence. On September 18, 1933, defendant company suspended plaintiff and later applied to the Wellington Engineers’ Apprenticeship Committee | for cancellation of the contract. The committee, unable to come to a decision. referred the matter to the Court of Arbitration, which held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the application upon the ground that, the award being cancelled, the Apprentices Act had ceased to apply. Plaintiff thereupon brought an action against defendant company claiming wages during the period of suspension and £5OO damages for wrongful dismissal. Upon the order of Mr. Justice Reed a series of questions to ascertain the true legal position of the contract and the respective rights of employer and apprentice were stated for the opinion of the Ful Court, and they argued this afternoon. For the plaintiff apprentice counsel urged that the apprenticeship contract was merely a common law contract incorporating, as part of its terms, the provision of the Apprentices Act. Consequently it was immaterial whether or not the Act was still in force, for even if it were dead it would still operate so far as this particular contract was concerned. On the other hand, counsel for the defendant company contended that the contract was a statutory one dependant upon the Act for its existence and necessarily falling with the Act. In answer to the Chief Justice counsel for defendants admitted that his argument must mean that all apprentices’ contracts drawn in relation to an award since cancelled were no longer effective and could be disregarded by either party. The Court adjourned.