France v James Coombes & Co
Encyclopedia
France v James Coombes & Co [1929] AC 496 is an old UK labour law case, concerning the definition of ‘employee’ for the purpose of section 8 of the Trade Boards Act 1909
Trade Boards Act 1909
The Trade Boards Act 1909 was a piece of social legislation passed in the United Kingdom in 1909. It provided for the creation of boards which could set minimum wage criteria that were legally enforceable...

 and the Trade Boards Act 1918
Trade Boards Act 1918
The Trade Boards Act 1918 was a Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that heavily shaped the post-World War I system of UK labour law, particularly regarding collective bargaining and the establishment of minimum wages...

.

Facts

The Minister of Labour
Minister of Labour
Minister of Labour is typically a cabinet-level position with portfolio responsibility for setting national labour standards, labour dispute mechanisms and employment.The position exist in many countries with several different names:...

 under the Trade Boards Act 1909
Trade Boards Act 1909
The Trade Boards Act 1909 was a piece of social legislation passed in the United Kingdom in 1909. It provided for the creation of boards which could set minimum wage criteria that were legally enforceable...

 and the Trade Boards Act 1918
Trade Boards Act 1918
The Trade Boards Act 1918 was a Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that heavily shaped the post-World War I system of UK labour law, particularly regarding collective bargaining and the establishment of minimum wages...

 made an order applicable to boot and shop repairing called the Trade Boards (Boot and Shoe Repairing) Order 1919. This established a trade board to fix minium rates of wages for managers and other clases of workers in the trade. It did so and the Minister of Labour confirmed them by an order on 8 August 1922. Mr France claimed the minimum wage applied to him from his employer, James Coombes & Co. He repaired boots, and so was physically working, for less than half the time he was in the shop. The employer contended that taking this into account he was receiving the minimum wage.

MacKinnon J at the King's Bench and Scrutton LJ, Sankey LJ, and Romer J in the Court of Appeal held that when the manager was not actually working, there was no entitlement to be paid.

Judgment

The House of Lords, by a majority, held that Mr France was not to be considered employed "all the time during which he was present" at the shop under TBA 1918 s 8, because in that time he was "so present for some purpose unconnected with his work and other than that of waiting for work to be given to him to perform."

Lord Blanesburgh dissented, his judgment read by Lord Atkin. He would have allowed the appeal.
The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK