The Secretary to the Department of the Navy has forwarded for advice the following memorandum:

With reference to section 134 of the Defence Act 1903-1918 in regard to the granting of leave to persons employed upon sea-going vessels liable for compulsory training and allotted to the Naval Forces, I am directed by the Naval Board to request that the opinion of the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor may be given as to whether the master of a vessel comes within the definition of 'Employer', as mentioned in the section of the Act quoted.

Section 134 of the Defence Act 1903-1918 provides inter alia that no employer shall prevent, or attempt to prevent, any employee who is serving or liable to serve in the Cadets or Citizen Forces from rendering the personal service required of him, and no employer shall in any way penalise or prejudice in his employment or attempt to penalise or prejudice in his employment any employee for rendering or being liable to render such personal service, either by reducing his wages or dismissing him from his employment or in any other manner.

It is a question of fact in any particular case whether the master is an employer within the meaning of that section and I am, therefore, unable to advise generally on the question submitted.

In the usual case, however, of the master acting as the servant or agent of the shipowner the master would not, in my opinion, be deemed to be the employer.

In such a case in the event of the master preventing the employee from rendering the personal service required of him or penalising or prejudicing the employee for rendering such service the shipowner would, I think, be liable under section 134.

[Vol. 17, p. 29]