The Meaning of "Munitions Work."
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Legal Construction of Adapted or Intended For Use in War.
The first appeal, brought from the decision of a Local Munitions Tribunal, was heard by Mr. Justice Atkin, in the King's Bench Division, on the 7th inst. The question raised was whether ordinary railway wagons are vehicles intended or adapted for use, so as to constitute the work of repairing such wagons " munitions work" under Section 9 of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916.
Why the Leaving Certificate was Originally Refused, and Why the Munitions Tribunal Issued One.
An employee named George Shaw in the service of the Lincoln Wagon and Engine Co., Ltd.. obtained a decision from the North Staffordshire Local Munitions Tribunal to the effect that a leaving certificate had been unreasonably withheld by the company named, the employee's complaint being that the company could not find him regular work at his own trade. The employee had been at work in the company's branch works at Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent ; his time had been spent partly, on the repair of , wagons belonging to colliery companies, and partly in wagon-lifting work, which latter work was usually done by labourers.
The company appealed to the King's Bench Division against the decision of the Tribunal, which decision was, that the employee had worked in a class comprised within the Order, but not on work in connection with munitions work, as defined in Section 9 of the Act of 1916. A certificate was accordingly issued by the Tribunal to the. employee that he was not a worker within the meaning of the Sections 3 and 7 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, and Section 9 of the Act of 1916.
The appellant company now contended that the work of repairing railway wagons was munitions work, and it was therefore correct for the company to refuse to grant a leaving certificate.
The Judgment.* Mr. Justice Atkin delivered a considered judgment on the 15th inst. in this case, which raised a question as to the meaning of "munitions work" under the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916. Mr. D. N. Pritt appeared for the appellants ; Mr. Artemus Jones • for the respondent ; Mr. H. D. lissome appeared on behalf of the Minister a Munitions.
His Lordship said :—The principal question in this case is the construction to be put upon the definition of" munitions work." in section 9, sub-section 1 of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916—" The manufacture or repair of arms, ammunition, ships, vessels, vehicles, and aircraft and any other articles or parts of articles (whether of similar nature to the aforesaid or not) intended or adapted for use in war." The vehicles in this case are railway wagons belonging to collieries and used by them for conveying coal from the colliery to their customers. The Munitions of War Act, 1916, is entitled, " An Act to makeeirovision for furthering the efficient manufacture, transport, and supply of munitions for the present war, and for purposes incidental thereto." I am clear that the words "for use in war" shonla not be limited to use in the face of the eterny or within the district of warlike operations. There was no dispute that use in this country for furthering the prosecution of the war, as, for instance, by Conveying munitions or tree-Ts from an inland centre to a port of embarkation, or conveying materials to a factory for the purpose of being manufactured into arms or ammunition, would be "use in war" within the meaning of this definition. It is not, hosvever, suggested that the wagons in this case were intended by anyone for use in war in the above sense.
41 Adapted" Does Not Imply Structural Alteration.
.I am, indeed, not sure that Mr. Pritt, in his very able argu merit in this case, to which I am much indebted, did not hint_ that such an inference could be drawn, but on the finding by B20 the tribunal and on the evidence I think it must be assumed that the wagons were not so intended. The question therefore semains were they " adapted " for use in war? What is the meaning of " adapted" in this context? I cannot accept the view contended for by Mr. Artemus Jones that " adapted " here means made fit by some alteration in structure or design. Such a meaning assorts ill with the preliminary words " manu facture or repair" of articles adapted, and I think is plainly inadmissible. "Adapted for use" means, I think, suitable far use, but it means in this context something more than merely capable of use. So far-reaching are the efforts of the belligerents in this war that there is hardly anything on the earth, in the air, or in the waters that could not, in some circumstances, be described as an article capable of use in war.
The Test to be Applied.
I think he word denotes fitness in some high degree, to be determined on the facts in each particular case, taking into consideration among other things, the extent to which articles of the particular class are in fact employed in war, the probability or otherwise that articles of the class in question might be required by the military authorities, and the importance or unimportance of the articles in furthering the efficient manufacture, transport, and supply of munitions for the present war. I think it plain, however, that in considering this part of the definition the actual use contemplated or intended of the article is inconclusive and may be irrelevant. If its use in war is intended the article will fall within the express words. "
Adapted" must, to my mind, when used disjunctively from "intended," convey some meaning independent of the intended use. It seems to me necessary for the purposes of the Act, so far as they are indicated by the provisions of Clause 4 of the original Act dealing with controlled establishments, that "munitions works" therein referred to should include the maeufacture of articles which there was not, before the Minister's intervention, a present intention to use in war.
It has to be remembered that by the terms of the order of the Minister the operation of section 5 of the Act of -1916 is confined to work in establishments (a) which are the factories or workshops and (b) in whic.h the business carried on falls within the classes of work, engineering, etc., mentioned in the order. While it is undesirable that too wide an interpretation should be given to the Act it seems to me that such an interpretation as I have given may reasonably be considered necessary for the adequate operation of the Act. At any rate, it appears to me to be the necessary construction of the words used.
Applying the foregoing test to the facts in this case, I think that the right view is that railway wagons of the class mentioned in this case are articles which are adapted for use in war in the sense that I have described. One cannot lose sight of their importance in transport; and I think it would be unfortunate if the Minister were unable, should he so desire, to use the powers of section 4 in respect of an establishment where such railway wagons were being manufactured. If such railway wagons are within the definition, then, as I have said, it seems to me iinmaterial that the wagons on which the complainant was engaged were not in fact being used or intended to be used in war.
The result is that the decision of the Munitions Tribunal that the complainant was not engaged on or in connection with munitions work must be reversed and the certificate to that effect issued by the tribunal must be set aside. The complainant, however, is not thereby deprived of any certificate.
His Lordship said that the finding of the tribunal appeared to be a finding that, on the assumption that the complainant had been engaged on munitions work, a leaving certificate had been unreasonably refused. That was, in this case, a finding of fact which he had no power to review. He thought that a certificate that the complainant was free to accept other employment should be issued by the Court, and he directed accordingly. Each party should bear his own costs of the appeal. Solicitors.—Messrs. Doyle, Devonshire, and Co. for Mr. S. E. Moron, Hanley; Messrs. Burn and Berridge for Mr. James Wilson, Wigan ; Mr. J. C. Miles.
* This report is published from and by arrangement with "The Tim es."--Eto.