APPRENTICES ACT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 207, 1 September 1934, Page 10

APPRENTICES ACT

FATE OF CONTRACTS DECISION OF FULL COURT. IMPORTANT TEST CASE. I Per Press Association. I WELLINGTON, Aug. 31. In the case of Burton v. the Precision Engineering Co., the Full Court this morning gave judgment on the questions of law argued before it. Mr. Justice Ostler and Mr. Justice Johnston, in separate judgments, held that the Apprentice Act, 1923. and its amendments applied to the contract under review by reason of the, general order of August 4, 1926, and as a result plaintiff’s remedies for the enforcement of this contract were restricted to the remedies provided by the Act The Chief Justice, in dissenting from the judgment, held that as from the date of cancellation of the award the Act and its amendments ceased to have any application to the contract, and he could see no reason why a party to such a contract should not have available to him the ordinary rtmedy in damages if the other party committed a breach of contract in respect of essential features. Judgment was entered in accordance with the view of the majority of the Court. No order was made as to costs as the adbion was treated as a "test" case. The decision is considered to be of . the greatest importance in view of its effect on apprenticeship contracts generally throughout the Dominion. ( Arguments to ascertain the true legal position in connection with ap- . prenticeshi.p contracts and the rights of employer and apprentice were heard 1 in a case stated which came before the Full Court at Wellington on June 29. Plaintiff was George Henry Burton and defendant the Precision Engineering Company. On the Bench were the ! Chief Justice. Sir Michael Myers, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice John- 1 ston. It was shown that apprenticeship 1 contracts were entered into between 1 the parties under the Apprentices Act, 1923, which incorporated as their basis : the provisions of the Act and of the general apprentices order governing the s conditions of employment. After the • contracts had been in existence for I some time the Court of Arbitration can- ] celled the award and the apprentices i order governing the industry. On pro- i cecdings being taken on the contracts ; in the Court of Arbitration, it was ( ruled that the Court had no jurisdic- < tion to deal with the matter as the i Act no longer applied to the contracts, ] for there was no award then in exist- ] ene.e. ( The present proceedings were to ; ascertain what was the true legal j position in connection with the con- , tracts and were the rights of the employer and the apprentice, who ( brought an action for wages during his suspension and £5OO damages. Under the contract in question the employer suspended his apprentice, ' claiming that he had a right to do so 1 under the Act, and' applied to the ! Court of Arbitration to cancel the ’ contract. The Court of Arbitration held that it had no jurisdiction as 1 the Act had ceased to apply on the ’ termination nf the award. —— -T-T—r