But this clause merely defines what employees shall be considered to be commercial operators, and shows that such employees do work other than transmitting or receiving messages. But the plaintiff says that that is the clause he is relying on in refusing to do copy work. Moreover there is a great deal of evidence, that it is the duty of operators to do recopying. But, be that as it may, I am of opinion that the learned trial judge was right in holding that the facts of this case brought it within the decision in Caven v. C.P.R., supra.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.