THE WEEKLY WAGE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 170, 11 April 1908, Page 5

THE WEEKLY WAGE.

SECTION 14 OF THE FACTORIES ACT INTERPRETED. . I i ~~~~ y MR. C. P.-, SICERRETT'S OPINION. Employers have been' nonplussed- to learn / that some authorities hold that Section 1-i • of the Factories 'Act Amendment Act, 1907, means'that every person employed in a fac-tory-must'bo employed weekly at a weekly wage. The opinion of Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., hafc been>' sought on; the point by the :Non'.'Zealand Employers' Federation, and is . as. follows: — '. . . ' •• . "I am asked to advise whether the: Labour' .Department is right in contending that .under Section It of . the Factories: Act Amendment > Act, 1907, every person ■, employed in any ca- . • parity in a factory must be employed weekly,' ■ and at a u;eekly >vage. ■I am informed that , - it was tho, avowed intention of tho Minister, when he introduced theßill into the Legislature, to provide by .this section that all such ••• omployments f should be weekly employments. ... I am clearly of .opinion that,, whatever, in- . 'tention.the -Minister'may have.had: ; in, his mind, Courts of- law : will not construe: Section / 14: so. as .to make every employment' l of a per- ,. . son in a factory a weekly employment and at a weekly wage. : "I have, arrived at this cpnclusion upon a plain ground. It is that the objcct of the • • section -.was to' prevent persona' being'/ employed in a factory or in factories witfiout a reasonable remuneration in; mqney, and was . 'to operate only during the subsistence of the -employment of tho factory,liand, and was not/intended' further than is actually expressed (namely, by fixing a minimum rate of , w.igeis) to interfere with the power of mas-' tors and servants to contract. It would require, according to the well-known canon of . interpretation,. express words, to. so limit the freedom of. contract as to make every employ-' . mont'in a'factory'a;weekly employment, with its attendant consequences.'' There aro certainly no such, words in Section 14. -1 am quite clear that tho omission from Section '14 of the, Act of 1907; of tho'words contained in-Scption 2 of,tho Act of 1905, referring to the fate- of remuneration, does not inferen- : tially'mdko. all employments in a factory weekly employments. All-that tho section , purports to do is to fix the minimum rata of wages. The ; employer and tho factory hand aro left to contract a? to tho duration of the contract and the other terms; of the em- '■ ployment, so loiig as, the remuneration is at a rate not less than the stipulated rate. The oiriission'pf jthe. Wofds' rofcrring "to tho rate of remuneration; does, not mako that which is in §übstance a minimum., rate anything less than what' it-, is, Moreover, it. should bo , remembered'that Section 14 is really part of . Section SI of .the Factories Act,' 1901 and "Subsections 2 and 3 of that Act are' still ' 'unrepealed and in force. Subsection 2 pro-' , vides that such rate of payment sliall in ' 'every case, bo irrespnetivo of overtime. The V" Legislature, by keeping in forced Subsection r. 2 , clearly .shows that they were reforring merely to-minimum rates of payment. Sufi ■ section 81'; provides that payment should bo ' marie in full 'lit riot more than fortnightly intervals. ; .This":also seems inconsistent'with the;'notion that every employment of a fac-tor.v-hah'd should.be a weekly employment. "J. am. of opinion therefore: that, notwithrtanding the intention of tho. Minister in Introducing the recent legislation, the law spill not construe Section. 14 as providing that jvery employment of a person in , ,i factory should be a weekly employment, but will eoiiitnie Section 14 merely as fixing the minimum' rate of wage payable to every person employed in a factory."