THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Mr. Lynn Brown 

Administrator 

State Board of Plumbing Examiners 

John H. Reagan Building 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. C-343 

Re: Whether the State Board of 

Plumbing Examiners has the 

authority to adopt rules 

establishing a procedure 

for registration of plumbers I apprentices, and reDear Mr. Brown: lated questions. 

You have requested the opinion of this office as to 

whether the State Board of Plumbsng Examiners has the authority 

to adopt rules establishing a procedure for the registration of 

plumbers' apprentices, whether the Board has the authority to 

require a minimum amount of plumbing experience before being 

permitted to take the examination for a-journeyman plumber's 

license, and whether the Board is authorized to require both 

registration of apprentices and a minimum period of experience 

as a registered apprentice before being permitted to take the 

journeyman plumber'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 

that Act contains the following definition: 

"A 'Plumber's Apprentice' within the meaning of this Act is any person other than a 

master plumber or Journeyman plumber who, as 

his principal occupation, is engaged in learning and assisting in the installation of plumbing." 

Section 11 of the Act contains the following language: 

-1627- 
Mr. Lynn Brown, page 2 (C-343) 

"Any person who has worked as a plumber's 

apprentice at 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 any examination 

to entitle him to a license as' a journeyman 

plumber, may file his application and take the 

examination provided by the Board." 

The above-quoted sections of the Plumbing License Law of 

1947 make it clear beyond question that the Legislature recognized 

apprenticeship as the traditional means of gaining proficiency 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 time period that an apprentice should remain intraining. Even when the power to,make rules and regulations is not expressly granted to an administrative board, Texas,courts have consistently held that the board had the implied power to adopt rules 

and regulations necessary to accomplish the purposes of the statute. 

Gulf Land Co. vs. Atlantic Reflnin Co., 134 Tex. 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 the protection and furtherance of,public health'and welfare (Sec. 18, Article 6243-101, 

V.C.S.). In the opinion of this office, the qualification of apprentice plumbers is a matter central to the basic function of the 

Board. Having been given an express ,grant of power by the Legislature, the Board may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, 

adopt reasonable time prerequisites for admission to the examination for licensing as a journeyman plumber, and adopt any necessary rules and regulations for the administration thereof. 

It should be observed at this point that there is an apparent conflict in the Plumbing License Law of 1947, with regard 

to apprentice plumbers. The Act makes reference to them, as noted 

above, and then provides, in Section 14, that: 

11 . . no person, whether as a master 

plumber, employing plumber, journeyman plumber, or otherwise, shall engage in, work at, 

or conduct the business of plumbing in this 

state or serve as a plumbing inspector as herein defined, except as herein specifically exempted from the provisions of this Act, unless 

such person is the holder of a valid license as 

provided for by this Act. . . .'I 

-1628- 
Mr. Lynn Brown, page 3 (C-343) 

Since an apprentice plumber is not licensed by the Act, and such 

an apprentice is not specifically exempted from the provisions 

of the Act, it has been contended that an apprentice is completely 

forbidden to embark upon learning the plumbing trade by performing 

the said trade in actual practice, even under the direct supervision of a licensed master or journeyman. Such an interpretation 

does not bear scrutiny. If th&s were true, then no person could 

commence to learn the trade by actual practice until he had a 

journeyman's license (and passing the examination for such a license would be nearly impossible without practical knowledge acquired in actual work situations). A prohibition against a working 

apprenticeship would defeat~the principal purpose of the Act - - 

to guarantee competent plumbers - - and thereby largely frustrate 

the manifest intent of the Legislature. Finally, it would work 

grievous hardship and injustice on anyone seeking to enter the 

plumbing trade since experience, as a practical matter, is a prerequisite to licensing, but the path of experience would 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, 154 Tex. 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 unlicensed practice 

of plumbing, we find the phrase "unless such installation of plumbor plumbing work be done under the supervision and control of a 

plumber licensed under this Act." (Emphasis supplied). It is the 

i oplnlon 0 a provision operates to exclude 

apprentices from the penalties of the Act, since such an interpretation operates to give full effect to the manifest legislative intent. 

One further contention against the control of apprentices has 

been made, and that is that a certain Illinois Supreme Court case 

forbids state participation 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 system where the apprentice had to work 

under a master plumber for a period of ten years, and then had to 

rely upon the master for a discretionary certification before the 

apprentice could qualify to take an examination for journeyman 

status. Such a system is clearly unconstitutional on many ground~s, 

and has no relation to the Texas system. The Texas State Board of 

Plumbing Examiners operates under a legislative mandate to license 

a sufficient number of qualified plumbers, whereas the former 

Illinois system had as its primary effect the strict limitation of 

competition by 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) 

licensing plumbers, 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 establish a minimum apprenticeship period 

for applicants for journeymen plumbers' litenses . 

The Board also has the power to adopt any 

reasonably necessary 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-