Maria v. State Examiners of Electricians

• Decision Date: 02 July 1974
• Citation: 313 N.E.2d 448,365 Mass. 551
• Parties: Frederick MARIA et al. 1 v. STATE EXAMINERS OF ELECTRICIANS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 448

313 N.E.2d 448

365 Mass. 551

Frederick MARIA et al. ¹ v. STATE EXAMINERS OF ELECTRICIANS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued May 9, 1974.

Decided July 2, 1974.

Robert E. Fast, Boston, for plaintiffs.

Timothy F. O'Leary, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before TAURO, C.J., and BRAUCHER, HENNESSEY, KAPLAN and WILKINS, JJ.

WILKINS, Justice.

The individual plaintiffs, each of whom is a licensed 'master electrician' (G.L. c. 141, § 1), and an incorporated association all of whose members are master electricians, brought a bill for declaratory relief against the State examiners of electricians seeking a declaration as to whether a 'journeyman electrician' (G.L. c. 141, § 1) may properly enter into a contract to install wires, conduits, apparatus, fixtures or other electrical appliances and employ learners or apprentices in any such work. The plaintiffs contend that a journeyman electrician may not contract to do electricians, work and that only master electricians, through journeymen electricians in their employ, may contract to install wires and other appliances for carrying or using electricity for light, heat or power purposes. The defendant examiners, relying on the practice since 1915, when the regulatory statute was first adopted (St.1915, c. 296), contend that under G.L. c. 141 a journeyman electrician, having no more than one learner or apprentice working with him and not employing any other journeyman to assist him, may contract to do electrical work.

The plaintiffs appeal from a final decree which declared that a journeyman electrician has the right to engage in the business of installing wires, conduits, apparatus, fixtures and other electrical appliances and that he can employ one learner or apprentice to work under his direct personal supervision, but that he cannot employ another journeyman to assist him. The case was presented in the Superior Court on a case stated. We affirm the Superior Court decree.

The statement of agreed facts recites that there are approximately 4,000 licensed master electricians and approximately 17,600 licensed journeymen electricians in the Commonwealth. A master electrician receives a 'certificate A' form of license; a journeyman electrician receives a 'Certificate B' form of license. G.L. c. 141, § 3. A holder of a 'Certificate A' is not thereby entitled 'to engage in or perform the actual work of installing electric wires, conduits and appliances' but is entitled 'to conduct business as a master electrician.' G.L. c. 141, § 3(1). A holder of a 'Certificate B' is 'authorized to engage in the occupation of a journeyman electrician.' G.L. c. 141, § 3(2). A 'journeyman electrician' is defined as 'a person qualified to do any work of installing wires, conduits, apparatus, fixtures and other appliances for hire.' G.L. c. 141, § 1, as appearing in St.1962, c. 582, § 1. ²

Since 1915 the State examiners of electricians have consistently interpreted the applicable statutes as not prohibiting a journeyman electrician from entering into contracts to perform electrical work, provided he does not employ any other journeyman to assist him or more than one helper or apprentice to work under his direct personal supervision. A 1915 opinion of the Attorney General set forth this view of St.1915, c. 296, the predecessor of G.L. c. 141. 4 Op.Atty.Gen. 496 (1915). That 1915 opinion was reaffirmed by an opinion of the Attorney General in 1962 (see Rep.A.G., Pub.Doc. No. 12, 1963, pp. 70--71), in spite of amendments made in G.L. c. 141 by St.1962, c. 582, which deleted certain language relied on in the 1915 opinion of the Attorney General.

We reject the plaintiffs' argument that G.L. c. 141 clearly prohibits a journeyman electrician from contracting directly for electrical business. A journeyman electrician is a person qualified to do certain electrical work 'for hire.' G.L. c. 141, § 1. The word 'hire' in one sense has been regarded as service rendered or to be rendered for compensation. See Bingham v. Scott, 177 Mass. 208, 211, 58 N.E. 687 (1900). There is no suggestion in G.L. c. 141 that a journeyman electrician may be 'for hire' only as an employee of a master electrician or as a full time employee (see G.L. c. 141, § 8), of one on whose premises or property he works. A 'Certificate B' authorizes the holder to engage in the occupation of a journeyman electrician. One who engages in an occupation need not do so as an employee; he may be an independent contractor. If the Legislature had intended to require that a 'Certificate B' holder work only as an employee, it could have clearly said so by authorizing the holder of such a certificate to be employed as a journeyman electrician only by persons authorized to employ him as provided elsewhere in G.L. c. 141.

Although a plausible argument can be made from the language in G.L. c. 141 that a journeyman electrician is barred from conducting an electrical business, we think that G.L. c. 141 is ambiguous on this point and that we may appropriately turn to various aids to the construction of that ambiguous statute. When we do, we believe that the consistent administrative interpretation of this statute since its inception in 1915 and amendment in 1962, bolstered by two opinions of the Attorney General, resolves any ambiguity concerning the rights of journeymen electricians. Reliance on an agency interpretation of an ambiguous statute, administered by it, is appropriate here. See DEVLIN V. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, ---, MASS. ---, --- , 305 N.E.2D 847 (1973)^A and cases cited. ³ Moreover, if the view urged by the plaintiffs were adopted, journeymen electricians working as independent contractors would be subject to criminal sanctions for violation of G.L. c. 141. G.L. c. 141, § 5. A strict interpretation of G.L. c. 141, according to normal principles of construction of a penal statute (see Davey Bros. Inc. v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 351 Mass. 59, 63, 217 N.E.2d 751 (1966); Wood v. Commissioner of Correction, --- Mass. ---, --- ^b, 292 N.E.2d 712 (1973)) calls for the same view of G.L. c. 141 as we have reached in reliance on the long standing interpretation by the State examiners.

The question whether a journeyman electrician may have a learner or helper work with him when he conducts business in his own name presents a different statutory problem. Having concluded that a journeyman electrician may contract to do electrical work, the question arises what, if any, restraint on the use of learners or apprentices G.L. c. 141 imposes on such a person. If a journeyman electrician is employed by a master electrician, only one learner or apprentice may be supervised by that journeyman and only one learner or apprentice may be employed...