Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions

5. Board's Consideration

Up one level

5.1 The Board has noted that the Registrar was satisfied that The Appellant met two of the competencies for the Carpentry Licence:

1. Demonstrate knowledge of the regulatory environment of the building construction industry; 2. Demonstrate knowledge of current building and trade practice.

The Board considered it unnecessary to review The Appellant's competency in these two matters, having regard for the Registrar's view.

5.2 In regard to Carpentry Competence 3 "Carry out planning and scheduling for carpentry work", the Board concluded that Indicator 3.1 was met by the scope of The Appellant's current work as an official of a Building Consent Authority. Indicator 3.2 was demonstrated by the example of work submitted with his appeal, albeit it was not a major project. Nevertheless, the testimonials submitted referred to his leadership role in projects which would have required him to "order and coordinate material supply”.

The Board has, therefore, concluded that The Appellant demonstrated through his performance of both indicators, that he met the requirements of Competency 3 of the Carpentry Licence Class.

5.3 The Assessor and Registrar's reasons for considering that The Appellant did not meet the requirements of the Competency was that he was not currently practising as a carpenter and had not done so since 2004.

This identifies an important element of principle which was considered by the Board. Rule 4 states that an applicant for a licence must meet the minimum standards of competence for the class of licence set out in Schedule 1. For the Carpentry Licence Class, there are 4 Competencies, all of which must be met.

5.4 The Registrar has referred in his report to an "assessment of current competence". (Refer paragraph 3.6). The Board agrees that this is the appropriate basis for assessment and notes that this Licence Class is applicable to "practitioners working as a carpenter".

The question to be determined is whether it is necessary for an applicant to be currently working at his/her trade to be regarded as a requirement for current competence. The Board's view is clearly that this is not essential, provided that an applicant is currently competent. In other words, if the practitioner were to return to his/her trade could he/she be expected to perform in a competent manner? Hence, in the Board's view, each case must be considered on its merits.

5.5 The Board noted that The Appellant has achieved the requirements to be awarded an Advanced National Certificate in Carpentry in 2003. It was noted in his qualification record that "He has also achieved above average marks in practical work" and his Record of Learning from the NZ Qualifications Authority outlines, in considerable detail, the practical work he undertook to obtain his qualifications.

5.6 The Board noted the content of a testimonial from a former employer5:

"[name redacted] has gained a broad range of carpentry experience from large scale structural work through to domestic style fitout and finishing work. He has proved himself to be a capable, versatile carpenter who has the skills and experience to slot into any type of work being undertaken".

Since 2004, The Appellant has been involved with various small carpentry project both for himself and others6.

5.7 Clearly, at the end of his employment with a building contractor in 2004, The Appellant met most, if not all, of the performance indicators of Competency 4 "carry out Carpentry Work". The Board does not consider that over the intervening period of 7 years that his competence in this area will have diminished, particularly given his current employment, his continuing professional development and his on-going building work (albeit of smaller scale).

5.8 The Board has, therefore, decided that The Appellant meets the requirements of Competency 4 of the Carpentry Licence Class and, therefore, ail requirements of the Licence Class and should be issued with a Licence.



5 Andrew MacGregor, Director, C Lund & Son Ltd (6 April 2004).

6 Reference from Robert Bailey (1 February 2011) concerning a residential project.

Last updated 11 May 2015