n.—ii"

There should be no exceptions to the requirement of prior consent in writing of the Committee ; but where a breach of this provision does occur, the Court of Arbitration alone should, in the interests of the boy, have the power, after full investigation of the circumstances, to validate the employment. In the carrying-out of these functions, as well as those prescribed by the terms of apprenticeship orders, actions will from time to time need to be taken against employers and apprentices. Such proceedings for enforcement should be conducted by the officers of the Labour Department who normally deal with prosecutions for breaches of awards and industrial agreements, but only after the Apprenticeship Committee in each case has considered the position and recommended action. Where the Committee itself makes a decision, as, for example, in the case of cancellation of a contract, there should be a right of appeal to the Courts as at present, but not to the Dominion Apprenticeship Committee. The general scheme of our proposals for the work of the various Committees is that the Court of Arbitration should deal -directly with both the Dominion Committees and with the local Committees. There should, however, be scope for direct association of local with Dominion Committees outside the statutory limitations we suggest. We think local Committees should bo encouraged to make suggestions and recommendations to the Dominion Committees on various questions. Dominion Committees would seek the advice of local Committees and would make suggestions to them in connection with such matters as methods of recruitment in those industries in which insufficient numbers of apprentices might be coming forward. In areas where there are no Apprenticeship Committees, the existing provision for delegation by the Court of their powers to Registrars of Apprentices should be retained, with the change of " District Registrars "to " Deputy Commissioners." The Commissioner of Apprenticeship and the Deputy Comissioners will obviously be in close association with one another, and this should have the effect of co-ordinating the work of the various Committees. APPRENTICESHIP TO INDUSTRY OR TO THE STATE Certain witnesses sought to remedy the weaknesses they found in the training of apprentices by proposing " apprenticeship to industry " or " apprenticeship to the State " ; and we feel it is incumbent upon us to comment upon these suggestions. Members of the Commission found it somewhat difficult at first to get sharp definitions of the first of these phrases from those who used it. As the hearings continued, however, greater clarity appeared, no doubt as a result of the examination of the earlier witnesses. To some, " industry " meant an association of all employers engaged in a particular industry; to others, " industry " meant employers and workers in an industry and their respective organizations'. All who proposed apprenticeship to industry or to the State were in agreement, on a negative definition, that apprenticeship should not be to individual employers as at present; and they brought forward three reasons for their opinions : — (1) The Effects of Specialization.— lt was pointed out to us that the increased use of machinery in some industries and the consequent tendency to specialization and subdivision of labour in the workshops no longer permitted of all apprentices getting an " all-round " training. Although the Act of 1923 allows Apprenticeship. Committees to transfer boys from one employer to another for good reason, there are certain difficulties in the way of making such transfers when the training is considered to be inadequate. The Committees are voluntary bodies, unable for lack of time or of an executive officer to keep themselves fully informed of the conditions of every workshop and of the progress of apprentices. Moreover, transfer can be only to an employer " willing and able "to undertake the training, and the finding of such an employer may be a troublesome task. Further, it was claimed that many Apprenticeship Committees are apathetic. (2) The Effects of Depressions.— All our witnesses (with the exception of a few apprentices) and all the members of the Commission have vivid and unpleasant memories of the conditions of employment during the period 1930-34. To some of our witnesses it seemed important that apprentices of the future should be safeguarded against the interruption of training such as occurred during the last depression, and that, moreover, a constant supply of skilled workers should be ensured by the carryingon of the training of the appropriate number of apprentices even when trade conditions are bad. The suggestions made to us were either that by means of a levy on all employers an insurance pool should be created to provide for the employment of apprentices when business was bad, or that the State should be a party to all contracts of apprenticeship. In this latter case the apprentices would become a charge on the State when their employers could no longer meet their obligations (as, indeed, some apprentices did as relief workers in 1930-34), and, moreover, the State could maintain the inflow of apprentices in order that there would be no shortage of tradesmen when business recovered. Further the State would see to it that the training of apprentices was continued, through the use of technical or trade schools and perhaps by engaging to some extent in productive work. (3) Reluctance to engage Apprentices. —We were shown that some employers do not undertake the training of apprentices at all. They draw their supply of skilled men from those who have been trained by others, and contribute nothing to the cost of training. It was suggested that, if boys were apprenticed to industry—that is, to an association of on all of whom a compulsory levy would be made —then not only would there be a fairer division of costs, but there would be a more adequate supply of apprentices. The advocates of apprenticeship to the State strongly claimed that the stability of such an industry as building would be greatly increased if there were the long-term planning that is possible only if the State is actively involved. We do not propose to adopt in full any of the suggestions made to us about apprenticeship to industry or to the State, but we have the following suggestions and recommendations to make which are designed to meet the difficulties outlined above :— (1) There is provision in the Apprentices Act, 1923 (section 5 (4) (d) ), for transfer of an apprentice from one employer to another "willing and able to undertake the obligations of the original employer." It should be made clear in the Act that the power may be used to ensure that an apprentice receives an adequate breadth of training. A full use of this power by revitalized Apprenticeship Committees or by the Court of Arbitration would, we believe, solve the problem of apprentices who are receiving an inadequate training because of the specialized nature of the work done by the firms who employ them. Such transfers may at times bring the proportion of apprentices to journeymen employed in a business above that permitted by the relevant apprenticeship order, and we recommend that the Act should allow for such excess when the Apprenticeship Committee approves,

8