IMPORTANT ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 40, 17 February 1937, Page 12

IMPORTANT ISSUE

APPRENTICE ORDERS

INTERPRETATION SOUGHT

STATUTORY POSITION

The question as to whether existing apprenticeship orders are subject to the limitations of the Factories Amendment Act of last year was submitted to the Arbitration Court today, when application was made by the Department of Labour for an interpretation of the furniture trades apprentices award. After hearing argument the Court reserved its decision. The case is of considerable importance to employers and workers.

His Honour Mr. Justice "Page presided, and with him were Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers' assessor) and Mr. A. L. Monteith (employees' assessor). Mr. F. J. Foot appeared for the apprentices and Mr. T. O. Bishop, with him Mr. H. J. Bishop, for the general body of employers. Hs Honour said that the matter was previously submitted to the Court by reference from one of the inspectors of the Labour Department, and written agreement on both sides was considered. In view of the importance of the matter as affecting apprenticeship orders generally it was decided to hear the parties in open court.

It was submitted by Mr. Foot that all apprenticeship contracts, whether entered into before or after July 1, 1936, were subject to section 12 of the Factories Act. After quoting certain legal decisions concerned with apprentices, Mr. Foot said that in order that existing orders should prevail .special exception should have been made in the Factories Act, or alternatively, some provision made in the Apprentices Act that its orders should prevail over other legislation. The intention of the Legislature in section 12 of the 1936 amendment had been, however, to provide a minimum wage for all factory workers,- and no exception was made in favour of employers of apprentices. The intention of the Legislature was shown in the preamble, and the section, in clear and explicit language, provided minimum rates for every person who was employed in any capacity in a factory. "It is submitted further," continued Mr. Foot, "that this case does not fall within the class of case where it has been held that a Statute must not be interpreted so as to take away an existing right unless express reference is made to it. AH the incidents of apprenticeship contracts are governed by Statute, or by- orders made under statutory authority. Indeed, it is not even necessary, in some cases, for a written contract to be executed by the parties. It cannot be said that the employer has any 'right' that the wages paid shall not exceed those specified in a previous order. The 'right' referred to in interpretation cases is a proprietary or vested interest, not a mere privilege. The right possessed by an employer under an existing apprenticeship contract to pay wages at a certain rate is not a vested right. He is contracting on a certain basis because the law has hitherto not forbidden him to do so."

Mr. Foot claimed that section 12 of the 1936 Amendment Act did not usurp any legal principle. It had been enacted and re-enacted many times, and did not'interfere with freedom of contract any more than its predecessors did so far as the principle was concerned. There was nothing in this section to conflict with previous legislation. The Apprenticeship Act did not specifically prescribe a minmum scale. Orders governing apprenticeship contracts and made under authority of the Apprenticeship Act were always liable to revocation either by another order or a general order as in 1931, or legislation such as the 1932 Finance Act. "It was true that these specifically referred to apprenticeship contracts already in existence, but this was necessarily so. The Factories Act, however, was concerned with only one phase of apprenticeship —conditions governing apprentices in factories. It was npt even necessary to assume that Parliament foresaw the application. Effect must be given to the Statute, if it were clear, even if hardship should follow to individuals. CREATING ANOMALIES. In supplementing previous written submissions handed in to the Court, Mr. T. O, Bishop contended that the spirit and underlying intention of the Factories Act was to confer benefits upon factory workers. If it could be shown that results contrary to this intention would accrue from the application of. the Factories Act to apprentices, and instead of benefits being conferred upon those whom the Act purported to serve there would actually be created such anomalies as would be prejudicial to the interests of apprentices, then in the absence of any specific provisions in the Act that it did apply to apprentices, it must be held not to apply. He held that the application of the Factories Act to apprentices would create such anomalies, and would, in fact, be prejudicial to the interests of boys seeking apprenticeship in manufacturing industries. Mr. Bishop continued that if the Factories Act be held to apply to apprentices the commencing wage of any boy entering upon an apprenticeship contract would have to be fixed in consideration of any prior employment in any factory whatsoever. "A boy who had left school at, say, fourteen years oj age, and worked as a message boy in a jam factory for two years," he said, "would then be entitled to be paid a wage of 31s per week for the first six months under any apprenticeship contract he might enter into in any other factory; 35s for .the second six months, and thereafter not less than 40s. Two boys entering the service of an engineering firm as apprentices at the same time, and at the same age of 16 years, (a) having left school at age 14 and having worked two years as a message boy in a factory, and (b) having remained at technical school to age 16, would be in this position as regards wages—(a) First six months, 31s; second six months, 355; third six months, 40s; fourth six months, ? (b) First ' six months, 15s; second six months, 19s; third six months, 235; fourth six months, 275.

"For the first eighteen months (a) would cam £137 16s and (b) would earn £73 2s. Leaving altogether out of consideration the fact that (b) would probably be much the better boy of the two, can it be held reasonable that the Legislature ever intended to create such mi absurd situation? Can such an effect be held to be consistent with the spirit and intention of the Act?1 ENCOURAGING BOYS. "I submit that it is a matter of common knowledge that the Government, far from having any intention to penalise a boy who remains longer at school.and so better equips himself for his future career, has every intention of encouraging such a boy. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Legislature had no intention of interfering at all with the special law dealing with apprentice contracts, and, .therefore, the Factories Act was never intended to apply to apprentices at all." Mr. Bishop further said that if it be

held that the Factories Act applied to apprentices, then the Court's powers to prescribe wages of apprentices were limited, but ,in the absence of any specific provision that they should be so limited then he submitted that the Apprentices Act of 1923 must prevail over the Factories Act of 1921-22; and that must have been the intention of the Legislature, because if it had not been the intention, there would have been the same proviso in respect of wage? as was included in respect of h iura of employment—that they might not be less than prescribed by other statute.

Mr. Bishop added that the application of the Factories Act to apprentices would create such anomalies that it could not be held reasonably that the Legislature, with a full knowledge of the implications of its own Acts, intended such application; that if it be held that the Factories Act applied to apprentices, then1 it must be held that the Legislature intended to penalise boys under certain circumstances and tr erect insuperable bars to their progress in life. His Honour said that the .Court would take time to consider its decision.