1.—13

34

responsibilities incurred under the Act; otherwise the tendency will be not to employ apprentices, which will prevent boys from learning the various trades. 5. That, on the question of excellency of workmanship, the Bill is totally unnecessary, as the majority of our best workmen of to-day have been trained in New Zealand. 6. That manufacturers contend that apprentices are fully protected by the old Act, together with the new Factories Act, and any further interference by the Legislature would operate to the disadvantage of the youth of the colony. I have, &c, Jas. A. Frostick, President, New Zealand Boot Manufacturers' Association. To the Chairman, Labour Bills Committee, Wellington.

APPENDIX G. Sib,— Wellington, 16th October, 1894. In re Master and Apprentice Bill (No. 2): I have no objection to apprenticing boys in my business so long as I am the sole judge as to their fitness, and to the rate of wages I should pay them during the time they are being taught. To show that my apprentices have been thoroughly satisfied with my arrangement, I have only one man working in the shop tinsmithing who did not start as an apprentice. The time specified in the Bill that a boy may be employed on probation would not enable me to judge of the fitness of a boy I wished to apprentice, or give him time to ascertain if he liked the trade. Then, there are always a number of boys required in a factory, not necessarily to learn the trade, and it would surely be unnecessarily vexatious to have to change these lads every month to comply with the Bill, as provided in clause 18. The Bill generally appears to me to be drawn up wholly in the interests of the apprentice. No protection is provided for the master, in the event of parents or guardians of apprentices removing to another country or other part of the colony, and insisting on taking their boys with them, where by so doing the master must suffer loss ; twice I have been put to great inconvenience by this, and the discipline of my factory been endangered. On the other hand the master is threatened with penalties for every trivial offence under the Bill. As to the wages specified, I do not think any master could afford to pay such increases. Necessarily for the first two or three years an apprentice does not yield any profit to his master, so that, if he is to get no profit in the last years, it would be better to have no apprentices at all. In my case, all hands out of their apprenticeship work piece-work, and this is the only way in which I could ascertain the cost of my goods; consequently, there is no standard wage by which an apprentice's wages could be fixed as provided. I fix the wages of the apprentice, and, when they have got on with their work a bit, probably in the third year, they are required to make out a bill of their work the same as the piece-workers; and on whatever they have made, valued at piece-work price, over and above their wages, they receive a stated portion. This provision is not mentioned in the deed of apprenticeship, but is paid voluntarily by me to encourage those who are industriously inclined, and works better, I am sure, than any hard and fast standard as fixed by the Third Schedule of Bill. Such an Act as proposed will, I feel sure, tend to alienate rather than encourage good-feeling between master and apprentice. I am, &c, J. A. Plimmbe. The Chairman, Labour Bills Committee, Wellington. Approximate Cost of Paper. —Preparation, not given ; printing (1,450 copies), £'22 14s. Gd.

Authority : Samuel Costall, Government Printer, Wellington.—lB94.

Price Is.]