### GENERAL THE ATTORNEY

OF TEXAS

Mr. Lynn Brown Administrator State Board of Plumbing Examiners John H. Reagan Building Austin, Texas 

### OpinionNo.

### C-343
Re: Whether the State Board of Plumbing Examinershas the authority to adopt rules establishinga procedure for registration of plumbersIapprentices,and reDear Mr. Brown: lated questions.

You have requested the opinion of this office as to whether the State Board of Plumbsng Examinershas the authority to adopt rules establishinga procedure for the registrationof plumbers' apprentices, whether the Board has the authority to require a minimum amount of plumbing experiencebefore being permitted to take the examination for a-journeymanplumber's license, and whether the Board is authorized to require both registration of apprentices and a minimum period of experience as a registered apprenticebefore being permitted to take the journeymanplumber's examination. These three questions are but variations on the same theme, and if the Board has the power to do one, it has the power to do all. Therefore, these questions will be answered as if they were a whole. Article 6243-101,Vernon's Civil Statutes, is the codification of the Plumbing License Law of 1947. Section 2(d) of thatAct contains the followingdefinition:

"A 'Plumber'sApprentice' within themeaning of thisAct is any person other than a master plumber or Journeymanplumber who, as his principal occupation, is engaged in learning and assisting in the installationof plumbing." Section 11 of the Act contains the following language:



### -1627-Mr. Lynn Brown, page 2 

### (C-343)

"Anyperson who has worked as a plumber's apprenticeat the business, trade or calling of plumbing for such a length of time as the Board may prescribe in its rules and regulations,and who desires to take anyexamination to entitle him to a license as' a journeyman plumber, may file his application and take the examinationprovided by the Board." The above-quoted sections of the Plumbing License Law of 1947make it clear beyond question that the Legislature recognized apprenticeshipas the traditionalmeans of gainingproficiency in a trade or profession. Section 11 also demonstrates the intention of the Legislature to give to the Board the authority to determine the optimum timeperiod that an apprentice should remain intraining. Even when the power to,make rules and regulations is not expressly granted to an administrativeboard, Texas,courtshave consistentlyheld that the board had the impliedpower to adopt rules and regulationsnecessary to accomplish the purposes of the statute. Gulf Land Co. vs. Atlantic Reflnin Co., 

### 134Tex. 59, 131 S.W.2d ommiss on vs. ell Oil Co., 139 Tex. 

### 66,161 ~l~~~~~~2~~~%4~~~exas Le!% Board,;;oSu;y SW?: ).

n our particular case, the zgisyat:te has iranted specific ruiemaking power to the, State Board of Plumbing,Examiners,and has delegated to this Board the duty of regulating the licensing of plumbers in this State, with the object of theprotection and furtherance of,publichealth'and welfare (Sec.

### 18,Article 6243-101, V.C.S.). In the opinion of this office, the qualificationof apprenticeplumbers is a matter central to the basic function of the Board. Having been given an express ,grantof power by the Legislature, the Board

### may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, adopt reasonable timeprerequisites for admission to the examination for licensing as a journeymanplumber, and adopt any necessary rules and regulations for the administration thereof.

It should be observed at thispoint that there is an apparent conflict in the Plumbing License Law of 1947, with regard to apprenticeplumbers. The Act makes reference to them, as noted above, and thenprovides, in Section 14, that:

11

. .no person, whether as a master plumber, employingplumber, journeymanplumber, or otherwise, shall engage in, work at, or conduct thebusiness of plumbing in this state or serve as a plumbing inspectoras herein defined, except as herein specificallyexempted from the provisions of thisAct, unless suchperson is the holder of a valid license as provided for by thisAct.
. . .'I -1628-Mr. Lynn Brown, page 3 (C-343)

Since an apprenticeplumber is not licensedby theAct, and such an apprentice is not specificallyexempted from the provisions of theAct, it 

### hasbeen contended that 

### an apprentice is completely forbidden to embark upon learning the plumbing tradeby performing the said trade in actual practice, even under the direct supervision of a licensedmaster or journeyman. Such an interpretation does not bear scrutiny. If th&s were true, then no person could commence to learn the tradeby actual practice until he had a journeyman's license (andpassing the examination for such a license would be nearly impossiblewithoutpractical knowledgeacquired in actual work situations). A prohibition against a working apprenticeshipwould defeat~theprincipalpurpose of theAct - - to guarantee competent plumbers - - and thereby largely frustrate themanifest intent of the Legislature. Finally, it would work grievoushardship and injustice on anyone seeking to enter the plumbing trade since experience,as a practicalmatter, is a prerequisite to licensing,but the path of experiencewould lead only to jail. Unless there is no alternative,a statute will not be interpreted so as to lead to a foolish or absurd result. vs. Blankenship, 

### 154Tex. 

### 632.; 282 S.W.2d 

### 691 (1955). McKlnney

A sound and reasonable construction of the Act, exempting plumbers' apprentices from the Act's penalties, is found in the language of Section 

### 14. After prohibiting the unlicensedpractice of plumbing, we find the phrase "unless such installation of plumbor plumbing work be done under the supervisionand control of a plumber licensedunder thisAct." (Emphasissupplied). It is the i oplnlon 0 a provision operates to exclude apprentices from the penalties of theAct, since such an interpretation operates to give full effect to themanifest legislative intent. One further contention against the control of apprenticeshas been made, and that is that a certain Illinois Supreme Court case forbids stateparticipation in apprentice training on constitutional grounds. The case of Peo le vs. 

### 888 (1950),held the plum & Brown, 

### 407 111. 

### 565, 95 N.E.2d icense of Illinois to be unconstitutional with regard to apprentices. The Illinois statute had set up an elaborate apprentice systemwhere the apprenticehad to work under a master plumber for a period of ten years, and then had to rely upon the master for a discretionary certificationbefore the apprentice could qualify to take an examination for journeyman status. Such a system is clearly unconstitutional onmany ground~s, and has no relation to the Texas system. The Texas State Board of Plumbing Examiners operates under a legislativemandate to license a sufficientnumber of qualifiedplumbers, whereas the former Illinois system had as its primary effect the strict limitation of competitionby making plumbing a very difficult trade to enter. So long as the Board is performing its assigned,function in

-1629-Mr. Lynn Brown, page 4 

### (0343)

licensingplumbers, the Brown case will have no application in this State.

SUMMARY

The State Board of Plumbing Examiners has the authority,under Article 

### 6243-1.01, V.C.S., to establisha minimum apprenticeshipperiod for applicants for journeymenplumbers' litenses
. The Board also has the power to adopt any reasonablynecessary rule or regulation for the purpose of administering such apprenticeship requirement.
Yours very truly,
WAGGONER CAPR Attorney General

MLQ:ms
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Roy Johnson V. F. Taylor Paul Phy Howard Fender
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Roger Tyler Assistant

-1630-