EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13637, 16 April 1908, Page 7

EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION.

AN IMPORTANT LEGAL OPINION

At yesterday's meeting of tho Employers' Association the secretary read the following opinion of Mr C. 1\ Sherrett, K.C., sought by tho Employers' Federation: — "I am asked to advise whether the Labour Department is right in contending that under Section 14 of tho Factories Act Amendment Act, 1907, every person employed in any capacity in a factory must be employed weekly, and at a weekly wage. I am informed that it was the avowed intention of the Minister, when he introduced the Bill into the Legislature, to provide by this section that all such employments should be weekly employments. 1 am clearly of opinion that, whatever intention the Minister may havo had in his mind, Courts of law will not construe Section 14 so as to make every employment of a person in a factory a weekly employment and at a weekly wage. I have "arrived at this conclusion upon a -plain ground. It is that the object of the section jvas to prevent persons being employed hf a factory or m factories without a reasonable remuneration in monoy, and was to operate only during the subsistence of the employment of ihe factory hand, and was not intended further than is actually expressed (namely, by fixing a minimum rate- of wages) to interfere with the power of masters and servants to contract. It would require, according to tho well-known canon of interpretation, express words to so limit the freedom of contract as to make every employment in a factory a weekly employment, with its attendant consequences. There are certainsno such words in Section 14. I am quite clear that tho omission from Section 14 of the Act of 1907,, of tho words contained in Section 2 of the Act of 1900, referring to the rate of remuneration, does not inferential^ make all employments in a factory weekly employments. All tftat the" section purports to do is to fix the -minimum ra.te of wages.. The. employer 'and. the fa©' tory hand are left tojjpntract as to the duration, of the contract and the other terms of the employmerit, so long as the remuneration is at .. a rate 'not less than the stipulated rate. The omission of the word' referring tU the rate of remuneration does not make that which in substancje a minimum ,rate anything less tlian what it is. Moreover, it should be remembered that Section 14 is really part of Section 31 of the Factories Act 1901, and Subsections 2 and 3 of that Act are still unrepealod and in force. Subsection 2 provides that such a rate of payment shall in every case be irrespective of overtime. The Legislature by keeping in force Subsection 2 clearly shows that they were referring merely to minimum rates of payment. Soßkeetioni.3 provides that payment should be made in full at not more than fortnightly intervals. This also- seems inconsistent with the notion that every employment of a factory, hand should be a weekly, employment. :

"I am of opinion therefore that, not-, withstanding the intention of the Minister in introducing the recent legislation, the law will not construe Section, 14 as providing that every employment of a person in a factory shonld be a weekly employment, but will const rue| Section 14 merely as fixing the mini-p mum rate of wage payable to every per-3 son employed in a factory." j