Since this is well before the first incontrovertable evidence of any animal domestication (dogs), this is pretty unlikely. Also, at least prior to the origin of civilization, animals were generally domesticated for food, as beasts of burden, or because they offered unique abilities that helped paleolithic human socities hunt or gather food - or a combination of all three. I have a hard time seeing prehuman hominids fitting that mold. I see no obvious reason that nomadic human hunters and gatherers would see prehuman hominids anything other than competitors or prey animals. Unlike dogs or draft animals, they offer no skills and abilities that humans don't already have, they are far too intelligent (and probably too aggressive as well) to be easily incorporated into simple human societies as pets, and are probably not intelligent enough to function well as slaves.
Prehuman hominds are basically just really inferior people. As stewacide says, if you want slaves, just enslave people who can fully use your language, communicate with you, and function in human society. If you want animals to lift and pull loads, domesticate oxen, horses, dogs, etc. If you want hunting companions who can do things you can't, use dogs, other carnivores, falcons, or pigs. If you want readily available and easily kept animals to eat, use just about any of the above and then some. I just don't see paleolithic humans taking the effort to try any of that with hominids.
Only much later, when human civilization reached the point it can absorb large numbers of essentially ornamental or status-giving domestic animals might effort be expended to capture, breed, train, and cajole prehuman hominids to provide entertainment or highly specialized - but unnecessary - functions. Think cats, but different. Imagine Cleopatra sitting on her throne with two chained H. erectus at her feet, shaved and clothed like gods, trained to fight to the death for Antony's entertainment after providing her with sexual pleasure.
