« EelmineJätka »
of Trade may itself intervene in order to arrange (or to provide for the arrangement of) the dispute or difference.
The third species of servants are called Apprentices ; and these are infants, bound by indenture, usually for a term of years, to serve their masters, who on their part agree to maintain and instruct them in their trade during such period (0). The apprenticeship indenture must be executed by the infant, that being essential to the validity of the transaction (p). But there are also parish apprentices ; for the children of parents unable to maintain them may be apprenticed till the age of twenty-one to such persons as shall, by the poor law authorities, be thought fit to receive them, and this without their own consent or becoming parties to indentures, the apprenticing authority being the guardians of the poor law union of which the parish forms part (9). The persons selected as the masters of such apprentices were formerly compellable to take them (r): but, by the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1844, the reception of a parish apprentice is no
no longer compulsory.
There are numerous statutes relative to parish apprentices (s); and there are also divers enactments under which the justices of the peace may settle disputes between apprentices (whether bound by the parish or not) and their masters, or may discharge the apprentice from his indenture upon reasonable cause shown (t). Under the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, any dispute between
(0) Phillips v. Clift (1859), 4
(9) Poor Law Amendment Act, 1844, s. 12.
(r) Anon. (1700), 1 Salk. 67 ; Minchcamp's Case (1702), 2 Salk. 491.
(x) Poor Relief Act, 1601, s. 5 ; 8 & 9 Will. 3 (1696), c. 30 ; Parish
Apprentices Acts, 1778, 1804, and 1816 ; Poor Law Amendment Act, 1844, ss. 12, 13; 14 & 15 Vict. (1852) c. 11; and Divided Parishes Act, 1876, s. 27.
(1) 5 Eliz. (1562—3) c. 4, s. 35 ; Parish Apprentices Aots, 1792, 1816, and 1842 ; Parish Officers Act, 1793 ; Apprentices Act, 1814; Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, ss. 15, 61.
an apprentice ( being an apprentice to whom the statute applies) and his master, may be heard and determined either by the
justices (u), or by the county court, in the same way as if the dispute was one between an employer and a workman. In such a case the justices may make an order directing the apprentice to perform his duties, and may enforce the order by imprisonment for a period not exceeding fourteen days (oc) ; or they may, in a proper case, rescind the instrument of apprenticeship, and require the whole or any part of the apprenticeship premium to be refunded (y).
It is said that a master may correct his servant (being his apprentice), provided he do it with moderation, though he
may not so correct his domestic or other servants (z) ; but at the present day a master could hardly be advised to avail himself of this right. An infant apprentice, like a menial servant, is (in the absence of special agreement) entitled to receive proper maintenance from his employer (a). He is also entitled to receive medicine and medical attendance (), though in the case of other servants it is not the master's duty to provide these (c).
Where the master or mistress is legally bound to provide necessary food, clothing, medical aid, or lodging, and he or she wilfully, and without lawful excuse, refuses or neglects so to do, so that the servant's health is (or is likely to be) permanently injured thereby, such master or mistress is guilty of a criminal offence under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (d).
(u) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 90, s. 5. (3) Ibid., s. 6.
(y) By the 52 & 53 Vict. (1889) c. 24, a great number of Acts of an obsolete character relating to workmen and their masters have been repealed.
(z) Gylbert v. Fletcher (1630),
Cro. Car. 179; Winstone v. Linn (1823), 1 B. & C. 469.
(a) R. v. Gould (1717), 1 Salk. 381.
(6) R. v. Smith (1837), 8 Car. & P. 153.
(c) Wennall v. Adney (1802), 3 Bos. & Pul. 247.
(d) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, 8. 6.
A master was not, in general, liable at common law to his servant for an injury which was the result of the negligence of a fellow-servant, or of the defective condition of the factory, plant, or other property of the master in or about which the servant was employed, unless it was shown that the master had failed in his duty of supplying proper appliances, and of superintending the work properly himself, or selecting proper persons to do so (e). When proper appliances had been supplied, and they afterwards became unsafe, and an injury thereby occurred to a servant, the latter could not recover, unless it was shown that they had become unsafe to the knowledge of the master and without the knowledge of the servant (8). The principle in these cases is volenti non fit injuria : a servant when he engages to serve a master, undertakes to run all the ordinary risks of the service, including the risk of negligence on the part of a fellow servant (9). The common law rule has been materially altered by legislation, but except in so far as altered is still in force.
By the Employers' Liability Act, 1880(1), a workman or his legal personal representatives, or other persons entitled in case of his death, have, in a number of cases, the same right to compensation as if the workman had not been in the service of the employer. These cases include injuries caused (1) by defects in the employer's premises and machinery where such defects are due to, or have not been discovered or remedied through, the negligence of the employer or any servant entrusted by him with the
duty of seeing to their proper condition (1), (2) by the negligence of a fellow servant having authority over the injured workman, or being in charge of any signal points, locomotive, or train on a railway (k). This Act applies only to workmen falling within the definition of “ workman " in the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875. It does not therefore apply to menial servants (1) ; nor does it apply to an omnibus conductor or driver of a tramcar (m).
The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (n), applies to any workman engaged in any of the following employments : (i) Employment in or about a railway (including a light railway); (ii) in or about a factory (including a dock, or laundry, etc.); (iii) in or about a mine or quarry; (iv) in or about an engineering work; (v) in or about a building which exceeds thirty feet in height, and which is being built or repaired by means of scaffolding, or is being demolished, or in which machinery driven by mechanical power is used for the purpose of the building, repair, or demolition (6); (vi) agriculture (p). The main provisions of this Act are as follows. (i) Compensation is payable in all cases of injury by accident (whether resulting in death or not) arising out of and in the course of the employment (9), unless the injury is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman himself (r); (ii) Where, by reason of the
(i) Heske v. Samuelson (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 30 ; Cripps v. Judge (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 583.
(k) Cor v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 106 ; Mill. ward v. Midland Rail. Co. (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 68 ; McCord v. Cammell & Co., (1896] A. C. 57.
(?) Pearce v. Lansdowne (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 441.
(m) Morgan v. London General Omnilnix Co. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 832 ; Cook v. North Metropolitan
Trumways Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 683.
(n) 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37; General Rules, May, 1898, and September, 1899; Regulations, May, 1898.
(0) 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37, s. 7.
(p) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 22).
(9) Powell v. Brown,  1 Q. B. 157; Love v. Pearson,  1 Q. B. 261; Smith v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co., ibid., 141.
(r) Sect. 1 (2) (c).
personal negligence or wilful act of the employer, or some
(s) Sect. 1 (2) (b).
(w) “Workman" includes persons of either sex : Workman's
Compensation Act, s. 7 (2), and
(c) Sect 7 (2), Sched I., and see