"In this case the applicants lost employment on 1st August, 1925, by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute, but by decision 1969/25 I held that they were, nevertheless, entitled to benefit as the stoppage of work was due to the employers so acting as to contravene the terms of the Baldwin settlement.

"On 30th April, 1926, the Baldwin settlement ceased to operate and by decision 1239/26 dated 5th June, 1926, I held that the stoppage of work was not after that date due to contravention of that agreement, but was due to the refusal of the workmen to accept certain proposals of the employers with regard to base rates which were in dispute in July, 1925, and were in May, 1926, still in dispute. The stoppage of work after 30th April was no doubt also partly due to the national dispute in the coal-mining industry.

"From time to time I was asked to revise this decision, but it was not until 25th January that the applicants brought to my notice the new facts now principally relied on, namely, that the employers by one of the terms in their proposals of July, 1925, were in contravention of the terms of a county agreement of 1904 which defined the duties of fillers.

"No doubt the men objected to the proposal at the time, and this proposal was one of the obstacles (though by no means the only one) which prevented a settlement of the dispute in 1925. But it was argued by Mr. Fenwick that the men could not at the time put their fingers on the particular agreement which is contravened and that, as they have now discovered that this term was a contravention of the agreement they are entitled to rely on it as the cause of the stoppage of work.

"The employers' proposal does seem to have been in contravention of the agreement of 1904, but throughout this dispute the applicants have had the advantage of very skilful advisers, and it appears to me incredible that if this contravention had been to any substantial extent the cause of the stoppage of work it would not have been thought of and put forward long ago.

"No one can doubt that after 30th April the national dispute was the real obstacle to a resumption of work, or at any rate, that if the dispute about the duties of fillers had been overcome the stoppage of work would never then have continued so long as the national dispute was unsettled. "In my opinion this is not a case in which there has been such a miscarriage of justice that I ought to revise my decision."

CASE No. 754/27. (26TH FEBRUARY, 1927.)-SECTION 7 (1) (IV) OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT (AS AMENDED)-SUITABLE EMPLOYMENT, UNABLE TO OBTAIN. Proviso C-Carpenter refused offer of employment, alleging hours of work not in accord with national agreement-General question whether employment on conditions contrary to those recognised by national agreement is suitable or otherwise.

The applicant, a carpenter, who was resident in Yeovil, lost his employment on 12th October, 1926, and made a claim for unemployment benefit on the following day. On 10th November he refused an offer of apparently suitable employment at Devizes, 46 miles from his home, at the district standard rate of wages. His claim was accordingly disallowed for six weeks from 11th November on the ground that he was not unable to obtain suitable employment.

The principal reason for the applicant's refusal of the offer appeared to be that whereas he would have been required to work 46 hours a week, a national agreement to which his trade union was party limited the number of working hours during the winter months to 44 a week. Had he accepted the job he would have incurred the risk of being fined and suspended from his union.

Recommended by the Court of Referees that the claim should be disallowed. The Court was of the opinion that the employment was suitable. The applicant's association appealed to the Umpire against the disallowance, and after an oral hearing the Umpire gave the following decision: :

Decision." On the facts before me my decision is that the claim for benefit should be disallowed.

"The applicant, a carpenter, living at Yeovil, was offered employment at Devizes in November. His only substantial objection to the employment was that the employer's working hours were 46 hours per week, whereas in accordance with the National Working Rules of the National Joint Council for the Building Industry the working hours at that season would be 44 hours per week.

"The Working Rules are embodied in an agreement made between the National Federation of Building Trades Employers (and other associations of employers) and a number of operatives' trade unions including the association of which the applicant is a member, and they are generally observed throughout the country by federated employers and members of operatives' unions in the building trade. But there is a considerable number of non-federated employers in various districts some of whom do not comply with these rules.

"In the Devizes district there appear to be but few, if any, federated employers, and the hours usually worked in that district are stated to be 46 in winter, although presumably, if a federated employer had a contract in that district, he would follow the National Working Rules.

"The first question which arises is whether the employment offered was unsuitable having regard to Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act of 1920, as being employment on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in the district by agreement between associations of employers and employees, or, failing such agreement, than those generally recognised in the district by good employers. No working hours are generally observed in the district by agreement between associations of employers and of employees, but it appears that the hours of working generally recognised by good employers in the district are 46.

"Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1920 does not profess to provide a complete test of suitability of employment. The Act does not say that employment at the rate of wages and on conditions generally recognised in the district by good employers is necessarily suitable, and it is argued that, independently of that Section, employment is unsuitable if it is not in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to between representative bodies of employers and employees as the terms and conditions to be recognised and accepted throughout the country.

66

It is said, on the one hand, that such agreements are made in the general interests of the industry and provide what by common consent of employers and employees in the industry are fair conditions of employment, and I am asked to infer that employment on other terms must necessarily be unsuitable. It is said, on the other hand, that it does not follow that employment on other terms or conditions is necessarily unsuitable, and that in deciding what is suitable employment regard must be had not only to the interests of the parties to such an agreement, but also to the interests of employers who are not parties to it, and to those of the public at large. These considerations raise questions of policy upon which opinions may differ, and it seems to me the only safe course is to follow strictly the words of the Act of Parliament. As Lord Sumner said in a recent case in the House of Lords, 'Just as we are bound absolutely by the language of the Legislature, so we must abstain from putting upon the

Legislature anything that is not clearly what it has said, and for this very good reason, that it is so extremely apt to make judicial ideas as to what is good for the public or within the vague confines of public policy, do duty instead of a literal and unimaginative interpretation of the Legislature's own words.'

"To say that an offer of employment is unsuitable merely because it is on terms other than those recognised by a national agreement between bodies of employers and employees would be in effect to add a new and very far-reaching clause to the proviso to Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1920.

"The question has been considered by the Umpire in several cases, and in accordance with the views above expressed it was held in decisions 2263, 4268, and 6747 (1920) and 509/25 that employment is not unsuitable merely because it is not in accordance with the conditions agreed to by representative bodies of employers and employees. "A different view, however, was held in three early cases, 1262/1911, 2155/20 and 5811/20, and these cases were (without sufficient consideration as it now seems) followed by me in decision 3421/26. These cases must now be held to have been erroneously decided.

"Decision 240/27 has no bearing on this question as in that case no question of suitability of employment arose for decision. The only question was whether the applicant was guilty of misconduct in refusing to do certain work in accordance with the implied terms of his contract of service he could not be required to do.

"For these reasons, and following the principle of the group of cases first above referred to, I must hold that the employment offered to the applicant is not shown to have been unsuitable."

CASE NO. 826/27. (4TH MARCH, 1927.)-SECTION 7 (1) (iii) OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT, AND 7 (1) (iv) (AS AMENDED)—AVAILABLE FOR, AND GENUINELY SEEKING WORK.

Applicant entered on long course of training at Wireless College with prospects of employment at end of course-No intention of seeking work before completion of course-Not Available, and not Genuinely Seeking Work.

The applicant, a student at a wireless college, made a claim for unemployment benefit on 23rd September, 1926, which was disallowed as from that date on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking work. or alternatively that he was not available for work.

The applicant stated that he was an engineer, but in consequence of a long period of slackness, he was unable to obtain employment in his own trade, and accepted work as a porter at a large stores. Owing to a war disability, however, he found the work too heavy, and in June, 1926, he was compelled to go to hospital for three weeks. On his discharge from hospital, finding it was impracticable to obtain light work in the engineering trade or elsewhere, he commenced a 47 weeks' wholetime course of instruction at a wireless college. He paid a fee of £25, and if he passed the qualifying examination on completion of the course, the college undertook to find him employment on a seagoing vessel for a further fee of £15. He maintained that although engaged in a course of study which would ultimately lead to employment of a suitable and permanent character, he was available for other work. If he were offered employment carrying wages and prospects equal to those offered by the wireless college he would at once accept.

Recommended by the Court of Referees that the claim should be allowed. The Court was of the opinion that the applicant was genuinely seeking work and was trying to improve his chances of employment by a course of

training. They considered that the case was governed by decisions 7795 and 8897.

The Insurance Officer, in view of decision 134/27, did not agree with the Court's recommendation, and referred the case to the Deputy Umpire, who gave the following decision:

:

Decision." On the facts before me, my decision is that the claim for benefit should be disallowed.

"This is a border-line case, and the question to be decided is whether it falls within the principles upon which benefit was allowed in decisions 7795 and 8897 of 1920 and 134 of 1927, or within the exceptions mentioned in the last-cited decision.

"Applicant is an engineer by trade, who has suffered from the slackness in that industry. His desire to obtain employment of some kind is evidenced by the fact that he took a job as a porter but had to relinquish it because the work was too heavy. He has determined to qualify as a radio wireless operator, and for that purpose is training at a college for a period of nine months, for which he has paid £25 in fees. If he qualifies by examination the college will guarantee his employment as a wireless operator on board ship, and in this case he will pay another £15.

"Benefit was disallowed by the Chief Insurance Officer upon the two grounds that applicant was not available for work and was not genuinely seeking work. Prima facie, an applicant who has paid. for and is undergoing a course of training, the benefit of which he will lose by taking other employment, seems not to be available for other work (decision 4903/20, paragraph 2 and cases there cited), but it has been held that the question of availability is a question of fact to be determined by the circumstances of each case (see decisions 7795 and 8897 of 1920), and I am prepared for the purpose of this decision to accept applicant's statement that he would have been available for any suitable employment which might be offered to him. There remains, however, the question whether he satisfies the statutory condition of genuinely seeking work.

"In decision 134/1927 it is said, 'But if a person has entered upon a long course of training with a view to improving his chances in the remote future it is impossible to say that he is now genuinely seeking work unless he is at the same time trying to get work at once. If he has abandoned the intention to find work until he has completed his course it is not genuinely seeking work.'

"The training at the college occupies every day between the hours of 9.30 a.m. and 12 noon and between 2 and 5 p.m. In these circumstances I have to answer the question whether applicant is at the same time trying to get work'? The onus is upon him to prove it, but, much as I should wish to assist an applicant who shows so much laudable determination, I am unable to find upon the evidence that he satisfies the condition.

"An expression of willingness to work' is not the same thing as seeking work.' Nor is an expression of genuinely wanting some work with good future prospects.' The furthest the applicant seems to go is when he says if anyone will offer me work which will give me similar wages and prospects for the future as is offered by the work for which I am training I would accept it at once.' This scarcely indicates that he is himself trying to get work at once, and he does not show any present efforts to obtain employment.

"In these circumstances I think the applicant's case falls within the exception stated in 134/27 and that his claim cannot be allowed unless and until he is able to give satisfactory evidence that he is in fact genuinely seeking work during his course of training."

CHAPTER IV

JUVENILES.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR GIVING ADVICE AND FOR PLACING IN
EMPLOYMENT.

Local Administration.

In England and Wales the work of advising boys and girls up to the age of 18 on the choice of a career and of placing them in suitable employment may be in the hands either of the Ministry or of a Local Education Authority exercising powers under Section 107 of the Education Act, 1921, and Section 6 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923. In areas for which the Ministry is responsible the work is carried out by the juvenile department of the local Employment Exchange, which usually has the help of a Juvenile Advisory Committee appointed by the Minister. In the areas for which Local Education Authorities are responsible, the work is carried out at Juvenile Employment Bureaux under the supervision of the Juvenile Employment Committees of Authorities exercising powers.

On 31st December, 1927, in England and Wales, powers were being exercised by 56 County Boroughs and by 29 Boroughs and 18 Urban Districts and by 10 County Councils either for the whole of the administrative area or for the elementary education area only. The Ministry is directly responsible in 211 Employment Exchange areas out of a total of 362 areas. The juvenile population covered by each type of arrangement cannot be precisely estimated, but the number of insured juveniles in Local Education Authority areas was 387,150 in 1927, and the number of insured juveniles in the Ministry of Labour areas (England and Wales only) at the same date was 481,910.

In Scotland the Ministry is directly responsible for all areas except Edinburgh, where a joint arrangement is in force with the Local Education Authority, which has a scheme under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908. The number of insured juveniles in Scotland in 1927 was 115,690.

In those areas for which the Ministry is directly responsible, including Scotland, there are 162 Juvenile Advisory Committees, of which 22 are in London. The constitution and functions of these Committees are described on p. 39 of the Report for 1925. During 1927, seven new Committees were set up. The Glasgow Central Committee was reconstituted as a Council, and co-ordinates the work of the Glasgow local Committees in the same way as the London Juvenile Advisory Council does that of the Committees in the London area. An important step in the development of the juvenile advisory work in Scotland was taken by the setting up in Edinburgh of an Advisory Committee for Juvenile Employment.