# Brief Amicus Curiae — Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0042%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief Amicus Curiae - **Published:** January 1, 1948 - **Citation:** 334 U.S. 446 ## Text Fe & COPY Ae . e Py ¢ Se, . - . . 4 4 . . oo. INTHE ye ee - supreme Court of the Binite Stas 3 ie ‘Ocrosus Tans, 1947, ~ ‘Bay Rivor OrrnaTina Co,, Inc., Petitioner, . noe , : a NGer | Le | .- Jamzs Aanox, er al., Respondents. %, _- eek: Hunox ‘Sravmonmre Corr., Petitioner, . oS ‘ ~ fae 2 Vv. . - re 3 dey : é s , ; L20 : ‘. ig Y ae es Lo Briv, wr Any Respondent, : “#: 4 = : ; : ‘> = ___ MOTION FOR LEAVE E TO FILE AND BRIEF OF THE WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF a ‘ oe | a See ee Perec vas A acetees 4 Aoi Be. oe re . * ae m . 3 as 2 2 ~ ” \ tee : ae - Warmmrsows Eperiovins ‘Agsoourion 09” ; Bas arte \ THE. Pactric Coast , - : oe Fe rae Ss Gaercory A. FEapnison: J 7 By 111 Sutter Street ~. San Franeisco, California river ‘ ae ; 4 n, D.. C. Bee pee to tg Attorneys ae + aaa Se e Summary o OF Paces, PESTS - ies re 3 cateliee—o _ Sumaaryior Arcumeyt’...... RS éesbanes weeeecesees 5, AnjuMENT .. Kabiews vies weeeesnecsevee’ on Saveus we ~ ConeéLusion *....: wees gies odeiees . Sa tactydussecsa: Se ae nes CITATIONS. Boe Cases? 3 Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Ine, 399. DUS. Oe ade ah ey Ca hen Cie reas cues i eek ccd suck aces 10 Bunting v. Oregow, 243 Ria Wc ME os xs sca cha van 12, 13 Jewel Ridge Coal. Corp. v. Local No. 6167, , S.° a Gates: ee: UB IT oe AEST i ae i te ia % Walling. Wartlsckiabes Ss 325, U. Ss. 427. 8,11 . Walling v. Helmerich & Payne; Inc.,.323 VU. S. 37.. ‘8 11 Walling 2 oungerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325, io Be og EO Er ee ee +. 8, 11 Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 Howard 646, 680". v.. PE tet: Wey . Statutes: | Eight-Hour Law ME Bias Sah de ce ehae cused 10 Fair Labor Standards Ket . Levene oth, 8, 6x7, 8 9. a Sone l 11, 22, 13, 20 Labs Manageme? Relations Act. 7 ere 9 + National Labor Relations’ Act .........-.. es a Te rrr Leereeee sa ia Portal-to-Portal 2: Gerenee ee! 6, 9, pa * 22 :% ia ee KNEE. @.: hey = - “4 oe . ; e nie F pas ties / . aan rot Index ee RE ee : a Sta SS ° “Mext. Books and Publications: a ae Sah Aa ey “% Bulletin No. 283, ureau of Labor Statistics. eaten is 26 Employment in quefacturing, 1899- 1939, Solomon PR ai ick gh vk oie oaks ARE DN ER EKO Cus as / 98. History of the Shipbuilding Leber Ad etacead Board 1917-1919, W illiam E. Hotchkiss and Henry. -R. . on 9 eR a aes Oia tenes eRe e eles Sveerece sss. 26 ee ‘ Industrial Demacracy; Sidne and: Beatrice Webb. . ~ Industrial Relations in the Building Indus ry, wil NE SEE ss 50 5 ca cca dSaks-ceabasgcawanes ct - . Interpretatiye Bulletin No? 4 Wane & Hear Division. “P “ . Labor and Social Organization, Richard®A. Lester .. .. and David: A. McCabe ........ vet et aeh tnek id os ‘S ' . Labor Problems, Professor T. S. Adams and Helen L. | MO: EE San ava peer eb eeSE AR SY OA 01008 widows 24 _ Monthly*Labor Review, October 1947 aR Se 14 Peace Along the Shore, Survey, Angee 2, 1920, B. M.: : PIO BR oi eked sien: akrkkssous 32 - » Shorter Hours, 1932, Marion C. Cahill. .........; "12, 27 The Collective Labor Agreement, Elias Liberman.. 27 The International Molders’ Union, F. Te Stockton. i, 29. The Printers, George E. Barnett ..... a ee - 24.. | What’s What in- the Labor Movement, Waldo R. “Browne. .....-::+.++. ween estes stees Ganssthis. ae “Miscellaneous; See one Caaeeaya ee 82 Cong: Rees p. 1990 pices Sh is kins od piace ginua ela’ 5 2 8 - Hearings -before Sub-Committee No. 4 ofthe House \ Committee on Education and Labor....:........ » 22 H. Rep. 1452, 75th = ‘Sess. Feaakecka engueaes.t oe . Journal of Commerce SNE rere Eee eros, See -. *. New York Herald- Tribune - Pesan eeniwee ava rs ds ely Ody OF ’ . New York __ eS aererS Speer ee eA eb aStee. se RU ND dco awwne eas Sevens cies culate eke 32, 34 - J Reports of the Industrial Feiiaien: on Labor Or- : ae ganizations, Labor Disputes and Arbitration... .26, 27, ; 29, 30, 31 Reports of. the’ Industrial Cornniséion on the Rela- > {ions and Conditions of Capital.and Labor...:.: °30— ‘Sen. Rep. 884, 75th. Cong., Ist Sess.........0....5 «8 . . Transcript of Proceedings before National Long- ae aeeeen’s Board, 1934 « pets ned seands ee (OOM 37 IN Tue ay + Supreme Court of the Anited siates s ee 1947, : i nee : a: | Rear Ves 3 “Nosy $66-367, , : A z a ; Bay Ruwee. OPERATENG. Co., Ixc., Petitioner, — ne oe or get A ye “ 5 ’ bin ae pg ; JAMES AARON, ET AL., Respondents, . : ? ai - ° f ‘ : . ’ a) Hvron Sreveporine Corpr., Petitioner, x . Vv. / Fae as LrEo Buvr, ET AL.; paepenaents. Pasi > ", MOTION OF THE WATERFRONT ek coviis, ASSO. - CIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF ASAMICUSCURIAE. | The undersigned, as ‘attorneys for’ WwW aterfront’ Ein |. “i ploy ers ‘Association “GE the ‘Pacific Coast, respectfully. niove. -. eS this. Honorable Court for permission to file the attached, | brief on behalf of the Waterfront Employers, Association | - of the Pacific Coast as Amicus Curiae in support of peti- » —_ tioners’. position. in the above-entitled cases. eM, - - Counsel for pet¥tioners ‘herein has consented to the : _ filing of this brief. Counsel for the as has refused - to grant consent. a i Waterfront Eaployers Assoviation of the Pacific | Leask referred to herein as the 5 Association, is a non- rats aes ‘ : a4 eee ° { ae is : ne \ ge te ‘ «€ 5 ae profit corporation. ina and. exiting setes the laws of” _ the State .of. California, - representing its members in : matters» ‘of collective bargaining with’ Jabor organiza- tions acting for longshoremen and other shoreside workers | ° in the shipping ‘industry on the. Pacific’ Coast and, as such, | 7 og ais party. to numerous labor contracts containin; provisions’ , 4 “concerning wages and hours similar‘ to those | involved im "|. the above: entitled cases, : 7 Sixty-three. suits are pending i in the United States Dis! yo ‘trict Courts in and for, the 3 “| gon, Northern -California’> and ‘manus California on— behalf of about 14 claimants against members of the’ s Employer Associat®n i in which contentions are.made simi- | lar to those made/by. respondents i in said ‘cases now pend- ,; ing in this Court, and decision of which will turn” upon * questions of law to be determinedcher¢in by this Court. ‘The Employer. Association on behalf of its members is _party to" labor, agreements affecti1 = ; 5. “twenty thousand workers on the Pacific Coast: by the ferms of. whi¢h/ agreements either party .may eancdl, should the contentio ons of sais made oY ee respondents herein be upheld. / /. _ This motion: is based ‘upen_the- foregoing ground’ aa he additional matters. set forth 1 in the eee brief. "W. Respeetfully snbinitted, ee 6 Ae ace eee ea Warenrnont EMpLoyers Association’ oF Wiooe Fs er I oe THE. Paetric Coast, . By Grecory a} Bae 1}1. Sutter Street, San Francisco, California sets ea aa Wiitine Raper. Ries eeeetes € ar Mary L. ScHLEIFER . | 1405 K Street, N. Ww. ae — Sf ge ae aed Attorneys ne | . . . ee ° « - 2ce ( * e § r r 4 - : * . : ° = » . ny : ? . - . ° E N . - : dd - \ - ‘ = . . . e ‘ . ee . , 4“ an Ra : ae Se nN ; Wer ens : : . : rN 7 2 “ oe IN ‘THE ; . , \ } e a : e \ ; ° A Bye . oe ‘ . a nee from day-to day." (p. 635) ¢ | bas . ave unrealistic or artificjal (Walling v. Hel rich & Payne, -. to, or do, \ negate the statutory purpose. Tiese contracts do — .. in Walling :v. ‘Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 - U.S. 419, and the contracts are not of a character which -.- parties the Court below has not only departed from the tent inthe Fair Labor Standards Act: As the District Judge found ‘‘The inevitable consequence of such a rule - . [as the plaintiffs urge].would be severely to restrict the | ‘scope of collective bargaining . >.” (R586) The Con-. gressional intent in the Fair Labor Standards . Act. is © es expressed | in ‘au report of the House Committee* whieh’ = stated: ‘ Our S iehe anlar the work lana fluctuate f ftom wed to week and “It is not suggested tint the labor Sonitraci involved here~ - Inc., 323. U. S. 37). There is no claim that they are in‘ended . not ‘establish rates that are illusory because never paid as __are instruments for evitsion of the law,. Walling v. Har-* : ~~ nisch feger Corp., 325 U. 8. 427. Fa 7 ‘In rejecting the collective bargaining agreements of the fe decisions of this Coart but also front the Congressional i in- | “The bill is intended: to aid ond not supplant the The report of the Senate Committee® ‘als stated: efforts, of Anierican workers to improve their position OY. self: organication and collective bargaining. : ‘Tt is not intended that this law shall invade the: ~ ae ~anlght of employer and employee to fix their own. con- ‘tracts of employnient. wherever there can a any real,~ genuine bargaining between them.’* * and Chairman Norton who reported the bill i in the Special Session explained: ° ? - “Tt is intended to éteet employees who: are not pro- . tected by colleeti By rgaining.”” r70" -_ 4H Rep. "1452, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., Ave. 6, 1937." Aad 5 Sen. Rep. 884, 75th Cong., Ist Sess., , July 6,19387. es + *82-Cong. Ree., p. 1990. ee | 9%- *. wo * ‘ | me , ‘ ; “e ; ig ies This. Congressional intent was reeniphagized: in the - Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (P. L. 49, 80th Congress; May 14, 1947) which states in the Findings, and Policy that . the Fair. Labor Standards’ Act ‘‘has*been “judicially inter- preted in ‘disregard of Jong established customs, practices, ‘and cOptracts between employers and employees*? anil if. -. ‘So interpreted ‘“voluntat collective’ ‘bargaining would be interfered with and industrial disputes . . . would be created"’ and that, ‘‘it is hereby, declared to be the policy Of E ongress ss (2) to “protect the right- ofe collective ee bargaining,” The national policy of encouraging thie col- jective bargaining process has.also been recently reaffirmed in the Labor-Management: Rélations Act, 1947 (P. ‘L. 101, 80th Corigress; June 23, 1947). . oe. -The Court-below in disregarding the collective hecuatelan ior ~ agreements of the parties and the conditions. and practices ‘in the industry, and ‘imposing a- vgs rigid rule Bw ; from ‘agreement to determine regulaf, rates--of ‘pay : ¢ learly departed from the repeated. sfPtemsate of this oat “that it was not-the purpose of Congtess in. enacting the - Fair Labor Standards Act to impose upon the almost infi- _ . nite variety of employment situattons a single rigid form , of wage agreement. Walling v. Belo Corp., supra, a 3 ? shall be upheld as-establishing the “regular rate’? of. ‘pay i “ accordance, with the declaration by this.(ourt that:° © | 149 Madison Avenue v. Asselta, 331 U. 8, 199, . It is respectfully subiaitted that the ‘tidimaent of the : Circuit Court should be reversed: and the deéisién of the . _. District Court reinstated to the end that collective, bargain- -. 4 ing contracts between: employers and employees entered. into in good faith without 6 ‘When employer: ‘and -employees have. agreed upon, an arrangement which has “ae ) mutaally, ‘salt . a at rahe not upset it : ; } aN E oT v. Belo ‘Corp. es spr, p. 635. 7 —f« aa .. 8843 40 U.S. C. A. 324 et seq.) as\well.as the Walsh- Healey Act : . } ’ — : \e* ethene “Tr ‘The Circuit Geert of. rene Erred ‘ in folding that“ Contractual Overtime Rates in the Stevedoring Industry | A ~ Constitute ‘Regular Rates of: Pay, ‘Within the panes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The basic issues in these cases are (1) whether overtime ; paid. in accordance with union agreements for wark out- side the workday and-.workweek. established ‘as nornial or ‘regular -by the agreements and paid | -without regard to whether such overtime is. worked before or after forty hours a week is to be excluded, from ‘‘regular rate’’, 4s _ that ‘term is used ‘in the Fair Labor Standards Act and *. (2) whether overtime rates in. ‘the stevedoring industry * are to be so excluded. We think both ——* must be; _answered in the affirmative. (a) By every test it is clear that Congress did not intend’ ‘the term ‘‘regular raté’’ to include ‘contract overtime. . The legislative history of. the Fair Labor Standards Act | ‘ reveals there was no discussion of the term “regular rate’ by the Congress. This lack of discussion clearly ‘demon- strates that Congress intended ‘regular rate’’ to’be used - in its ordinary accepted “meaning. Moreover, this is a- fundamental rule of statutory construction where Congress" fails to défine the terms of a statute. Old Colony Railroad E s Cc ompany v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 284 U. S. 552:-’ See also, Addison v. see Hili Fruit’ birioees Inc., 322 U. S..607. . In ordinary -accepted. meaning, the. ‘etitie pre rate’’ : or “basic rate’ are weed tnaeniaes from and do not in-,, } 8 The Bight- ee of 1912,.us amended (37 Skat. 137, 5 Stat, (49 Stat. 2036; 56 Stat. 277; 41 U/SXC. A. 35 et seq.), as supple-:: mented by’ Regulations of the Sedretary of Labor, require’ time and one-half the ‘‘basic rate’’, The terms “regular rate’’ and - _-**basie rate’’ have always been treated as synonamous. All steve- dores who have contracts with the Government are requiréd to pay time and one-half the ‘‘basic rate’’ for all work in excess of eight hours per day by reason pf th Eight- Hour Law. This. require-— += . ment has been considered satisfied’ by payment ‘at contract over- time rates. There is no doubt that if the degision of ‘the Cirenit- Court of Appeals is sustained, additional, liabilities will we created ~ _ under. the Eight-Hour Law pu e Walsh-Healey Act. °. - r ° 2 . | ee? a 6 ss Py « ee _ & F °° ; ; \ ao mh es: ie * interests primarily of health h glfeiency and to spread >, . Bs é = eo se™ . w , SEN aa eat me z a o 2 eatae rs “« . z . - . : e : e = =f . : ae hay ate : . or e . . ‘ = © . : y ’ ‘ . ite Sate ' - @ ; : ‘ . : ‘ - e . 8 , : . . ¢ . e * ° ° . . ° , ° . - 3 e % ° i . ks - ; ; e - . . , = . ° QO ; : . . te . : - . : ° 1 eis . : oe . : vie 2 a> 4 ad * . 11 é e ? | | Trade union agreemerits for more than - a senshiiiy: have used the device of imposing an economic nalty of higher rates for ‘‘overtime’” as a means’ of. channeling the work * into Acceptable daily, and weekly: patterns as fivfed by con- tracks The pu se of the unions in-the penalty ov vertime : device’ was to #®hieve a ‘shorter workday’ and workw eek’ in employment... ‘That this was: théip objective ‘rather than % securing increased. pay, by working certain hours at ‘‘reg- oe ular’? time and additional hours at ‘‘overtime’’, is well _ establish8d. Not only did Professors’ Taft and” MeCabe., _ so testify at the he ings (R. 327-330,-338, 346-348; 419, 422- . 423) but these conclusions are supported by. quotations mil eminent authorities in this field-which-have been reproduce@ —-_—yj in Appendix.A (p. 24)° attached -to this brief. That the purpose of the trade unions was not-to secure increased. ‘pay is further ‘estabpishied by the fact, ef which this Court, | may take judicial notice, that except ‘im periods ef tonne rary emergency or war periods, the actual hours of daily apd Ww eekly employment, have steadily — in this count “try over the last péentuny.® The purposes ofdabor’ unions -in sanesine i an economic -penalty for daily ‘and. weekly overtime are identical with » the purposes sought ‘to’ be. achieved by the Fair Labor -- “Standards Act: Indeed organized labors’ drive for Sliorter ees oe See sas the: eile | in Appendix B (p: 28) showing the decrease in the weekly hours of employment i in manufacturing since. 1909. & working hours was concurrently pressed by means of trade union agreements and legislation.” This legislative pro- gram culminated in the. Pair Labor Standards Act whieh _ Was. intetided to protect workers not covered by trade union: ’ agreements. - Since: the overtime requineinents of the fair. " Labor. Standards Act were intended to complement contract “provisions serving an ‘identical purpose, it also follows that ‘regular rate’’ in the Fair. Labor Standards Act was, not intended to include contract overtime. The Administrator, Wage. and Hour Division,. has always © | - recognized that the statutory requirements are met by con-. ‘tractual provisions ‘requiring’ overtime’ without. régard to whether paid for work before or after forty hours of work: | ‘Interpretative Bulletin No. 4 of the Wage ard Hour Divi- .. sion has consis y stated that contractual daily or weekly overtime may be credited against overtime payments due junder, Ahe Fair iabor Standards Act. Pireae . ‘The test of overtime, as distinguished from a shift dif- ”; ferential, i centive payment or ‘other type of “*regular’+ : rate”’; is purpose-—Le. is it intended te prevent work out- . é , “The provis ee a ov ertime i 1S ‘per missive, in the same °° sense fede any penalty may be sail to. be permissive. Its purpose ‘is to deter by its burden and its adequacy , for this-was agnattey of legislative judgment under: “The particular circumstances, It may not achieve its end, but _its ins from penalty to permission. at piers A Peas Press, 1932. noes Vy 1 Bunting v. Oregon, 243 v 8. 426, £36-437. Tae ees 8 os ae s . er 19 See, Shorter Hours, Marion e. Cahill Columbia University. | Lia \ ‘ : . ~_ 2B Sa cee - oe ew as aaed unions might have prohibited ‘all inal bey iad the ” established workday or workweek i in their drive for shorter ° *. hours put ‘this was" considered economically undesirable ; the employer was to be- permitted to exceed the established ts spattern | when the - exifencies of his’ business’ required it, _ provided only that he then compensated his employe ees at” .extra rates-for the added burden. This is likewise true of the Fajr Labor. Standards Act (Overnight Motor Transpor- . - tation Co. v. Missel, supra, p. 578). ‘The permissive charac- ‘ter of overtime and this Court’s decision ‘in, Bunting v. Ore- gon thas reyject any test whereby ‘‘overtime’? is limited to cases Where it is fully effective in preventing work outside’ .- . : the established pattern. ‘‘ .°. . Its imsifficiency cannot.) — — its character from penalty to permission’’. Bunting . Oregon, supra. Again this Court may take judieial quiz that some -overtime. occurs at =n ge dustries; the difference between industries is only one of _ degree. The adoption of any such test will. accordingly affect all industries having such collective bargaining © agreement at least for some periods. » Equally untenable is the contention that overtime must be’ limited to hours in excess of a given number. Obviously overtime paid for particular days, such as Sundays or — _ holidays, is not overtime by reason of constituting work _ in excess of any particular number, -of preceding hours. Moreovér, for many years many industries have consid-: er ed as overtime all work performed before or. aft ter certain howrs-of-the day without regard to whether a partjeular Rated ‘did any work’ during the regular hours on the same day." In Appendix C-(p. 29) attachedto-this brief, — ‘we have collected citations froin a number: of « published _contracts: in other industries for. many years long ante- . “dating th@ Fair’ Labor Standards A@t which like tlio’steve- ~. goring industry make overtime: payable for all work out-_ as side designated hours. 7 ot Professors Taft and McCabe testified that. ss caasiin. —yequiring overtime for any: work outside specified clock fr? 4 ad , A eae were ° generally prevalent i in union ‘ceaiieaite in the building, printing and metal trades and in scattered con- - tracts in .other- industries | covering cement and asphalt workers, steréotypers,. brewery workers, autoniobile - workers, retail delivery drivers, and boot: and shoe, leather and furniture workers (R. 331, 339, 425426). = * -More recently the Burean of Labor Sfatistics™ has stated * that -such contracts exist in the non-ferrous metal, auto- mobile, canning and presérving, cotton textile, men’s “clothing, shipbuilding, : tobacco, and trucking industries, as: - well-asin the stevedoritig industry. : It-is accordingly clear that throughout industry ‘gen- ‘ erally, the. term ‘‘overtime’’-was used in contradistinction _ to ‘‘régular’’ and employed for the purpose of prev enting — to. the greatest extent practicable, all work outside the reg- lar w orkday and workweek established by contract. . (b) Tithe. stevedoring ‘industry, management, labor aad: the public alike have always considered the approximately time and-one-half rate payable.fer night, Saturday, Sunday, and holiday work to be. ain vn rate and ‘pot ‘part of regular rate. -* . : Although - the “Circuit Court of Appeals ° referred to a .change in terminology in the longshore - con-— _,, tract_in. New York in 1938 from ‘‘all_ other time” - - to ov ertime’’, an analysis of the contracts preceding 1938 will establish, as thie Atforney General will undoubtedly show, that the terms ‘‘all other time’’ and ‘ overtime’’. ~\ . Were used interchangeably in the New York contracts prior® to 1938. . Thus the time ~~ one-half rate in New York was generally considered, by an overtime rate. The pres press showed a’ ‘like under- standing iti newspaper: and trade journal acceunts concern-- ing negotiations. between the International Longshoremen?s Association. and the. New York Shipping Association ‘in the years 1918-1936, some of which have been’ repeotees, ¥ saci G 2 Monthly Labor Review, Oct. 1947, henlni Pay Provisions m Union Agreements, p. Az. ey Ls i ee a 15 : ” in. Appendix D (n. 32). attached to es brief. “iw these articles, it is also cleét that the public understood the “straight tinue’ contract rates to be regular rates, for the -- iterm ‘regular rate’? is generally used. She we gr ' From the earliest longshore union contracts to 1934 on the Pacifie Coast and to the present on the Gulf Coast, the “comtracts between the unions and employ ers have follow ee ‘the pattern of wages and. hours prevailing harbor; that_i - “was carriéd on @& the basis 5 stated clock hour day: with straight time rates appli-~ * cable to ‘such hours and overtime - rates, approximately — - ‘50 per cent higher, applicable to all other hours. Such other 7 Pacific and‘ Gulf: Coast agreements... Thus the contract of | _. the Riggers ard whereas Union applicable jn mw: ~ Francisco ‘in 1911 provides:, 7, Nine honte? work sie tines beleaks the. hours of.» “7 A.M. and 5 P.M. shall constitute a day’s work. f 882 Al w ork performed betweeti the hours of 5 P.M. aad : «7 A.M! on Sundays, or oy State and Natioual Holi- 3 _ Mays, shall be quasicared overtime.’”. : The same: wording with minor variations continued ” -be | used in each contract until 1934."* ! See -, At. the coneiusion of -a maritime strike on the Pacitie employers . were ae to arbitration before ‘the — 13 The contracts in New Orleats and Gui satin wena used the | term ‘‘overtime’’ followitg the ayard of-the National Adjustment — | 4 Coetnniteaaie for New Orleans, dated November -2, 1918, which pro- vided : : ‘? Rirst:. The basic. working day of. eight (8) hours from 7 A.M. to 12 o’cléck noon, and from 1 P. M. to 4 P. M- is hereby : established. .. ie a i) ‘Second : On general cargo men. shall receive dake tive . cents (65¢) an hour for regular time on all. Week days and all - other time shall be counted, and paid for as overtime at the rase of one-dollar ($1.00) pet hour.”” (Emphasis, supplied) hours liave always’ been designated as ‘‘overtime’’ in the. - : Coast:in 1934, ail disputes of the’ longshoremen and their ~~ A am $ e . 3 . > | — 26. ae National- Sciahivcensie? s Board appointed, by- the. Presi. dent of the United States to hear and determine the strike issues. That Board rendered its award*on October 11,* 1934, and among: other things ordered. the parties to a opt. . finally ‘acceded to the actuulity and the’ ‘provision was in-. serted in contracts thereafter: ‘‘but there shall be no relief Me of gaugs before & P.M.” - Kr 1938, the: National Labor Relations Board certified the Inter national Longshorenien’ s and Warehousemen’s Union as collective bargaining representative for a unit compris- ‘ing all employéts of. longshoremen on the Pacifie Coast, except in a few minor ports on Puget Sound... The six- hour day atid the provision above “quoted: have’ since that date - - been ieorporated in all longshore and dock workers con- tracts on the Pacific Coast except where the eight- hour day _ prevails." Thus we. find ‘that in- the ‘iteeviatiee industry on the Pacifie Coast the same conception of contract overtime pre- vaited until 1934 as that which existed in New Y ork.. Since then, the only departure from the pattern of hoars and : rates of pay prevailing in New York arose out of the aw ard | iniposed by Presidential, Board upon employers on the. “Pacifie Coast, which being identical in purpose with that - “underlying the Fair Labor Standards Act, simply reduced the length of the workday, thus imposing upon the em-. cv —' seadaaléy of the suits filed on: the Pacifie Coast involve walk: ; ‘igg bosses who, while not covered by a cellective bargaining agree-- ment, have always been paid for straight. and overtime work strictly — . in accord with the longshore contract, except for an added differ- ‘ ential, and accordingly have enjoyed the benefits of the six-hour. © day sinee 1934. The balance of the-suits involve terminal worker's - employed under a contract with the International Longshoremen’ + - and Warehousemen’s Union which in alt matcrial respects is iden- tical with the New York longshore contracts. . Misses 18 ployers a. sitter ihilenthin resperting overtime as: an whieh had theretofpre prevailed but greater in- amount.‘ ‘o? .. Af so on the Pacifie-Coast as onthe Atlantic, andasin industry generally, we find all parties in interest imparting “ - to contract.rates ‘payable for the basic workday and work- } week the same, meaning as ‘‘regular’’ rates referredsto ny, the law and treating overtime rates as being. in conformity ’ with. the requirements. -of Section 7(a). oe: It is notable*that one of the important segments of organ- } ’ ized labor in this industry has affirmed these meanings and , ‘purposes in this case and that the-International Longshore- men’s and Warehousemen’s Union has never taken any ~ official position to the contrary. Finally, the District Judge found, based uport ev fidence” ea .whicli eapnot: be challenged as insulficient to ; support, tlie. /. Findings:: . ~ te | ae “ % ; r) 20 : : , 2 oon ze to restrict the scope of colléctive bargaining, to ‘chee! k “. «the development of agreemehts more favorable to em- . chem ployees. than.the minimum. standards -established by ' F.L.S. A. and fo r@tard the use of ov ertime even when’ | ‘national interest required it. . (R. 586) Rar ee Tine aint again; iti the Norris- LaGuardia Att (47 Stat. 70, 29 U.S. C. A. §$101 et seq.), in. the National Labor: Rela-, tions Act (49 Stat.-449, 29 U. &: C.A. §§161 et seq.), in Hie * ‘Labo#-Management Relations Act, 1947, (supra), and the ° , -Portal-to-Portal Act of .1947 - (supra), “Congress has de-. . clared the national policy to be one of encouraging the col- lective bargaining process. This Court ‘itself has recognized . : that as the policyof the Fair Labor Standards Act, (supra, -p. 7) as the legislative history of that Ast slows ( supra, p- 8).- Yet jhe effect of the decision below would render _ futile collective bargaining ‘respecting wages and hours, the | _ most important terms of the collective agreement, since the actual rates of pay would in‘a large measure be fixed. by law instead*of by contract. . Again the decision: of the Cir- cuit Court of Appeals would defeat. one of the principal objectives of organized labor; that of obtaining uniformity "4 of wage -rates for employees performi ng similar - work -under similar cigeumstancés. ‘And, by jirtue of the pen- alties which they would face, employe ors would be. deterred — * from aceeding td -the long -existing objective of organized : ~ labog to” impos¢ severe penalties for - the ew of ae work at undesirable hours. : ; The rule announced in ‘the decision of the Circuit Court, if upheld by this Court, will present to the stevedoring in-' dustry and others in like circumstances, the immediate need ~ ' of: setting aside, collective bargaining . ements and ip." ‘dustry practices which have long been Mfeffect and insist- ing on new forninlae to bring. wage ‘andhour provisions ‘: withir’the rigid rule -set fortli therein. yThe wage penalties ) threatened would leave no alternative to-employers. How workers and unions will respoyd cannot be certainly known. ; _ Obviously, the results will be isturbiitg to industry, labor ae ae ‘ ‘ill i serious. And, the effect on commerce " must cer ainty be ‘such as to result in- hardship and. i incon- venience 49 the public * : ois The.eoast Jongshore agreement for the, Pacific (and een shoreside labor. “contracts), as well’ as those in .the Port of New. York,:- contain specific provision. that-in the event of a _ _final. decision. holdjng the contracts before this Court in =) non-eonformity with the law either party niay forthwith. _ cancel, ‘thus recognizing - ‘that employers ivf this industry” - cannot carry on without t drastic changes.. Where contzacts - do not contain. such ause, the problem i is only deferred | ‘+ at the expense of employers. until contract expiration ‘dates “a - arrive, at which time ‘the impact Will fall ‘on commerce and _ : the public. «. “On the Pacific Coast : it is clear that if the aicielon of the (%urt below i is : affirmed, employers must attempt to abolish. _* the six- hour day. -It.is a matter of common knowledge that“ r ‘in the coal. and clothing industries ‘and ‘in many others, “hours .or: less have been established although ‘moré or - less regularly overtime hours’ are worked. In such indus- - tries also eniployers will be forced to’ resist continuance of conditions more favorable to. employees than the statute requires, which have been: obtained -by organized labor through the process of collective bargaining. It.is fair to predict also that if the decision of the Cireuit - .. Court’ of, Appeals -is sustained, al] industries subject to _ collective bargaining agreements Will face retroactive lia-— - bility in a flood of suitS comparable to thdése which arose ae under. the saine law prior to the Portal- to:Portal: Act of ° 1947. One cannot predict the exact extent of the liabilities - : which industry would face in that event. But, in an indus- nee try such as stevedoring ‘where labor costs constitute more than: 80 percent of ‘the total operating costs, it is: evident es : that financial ruin would result; ae % ae orkdays. of. eight, hours or less and workweeks of -forty ~~ ~ that the liabi sion .to reimburse contracting stevedores (for war service’ | only), if the jydgment of the court below i is sustained,- will “> approximate $300,000,000."° Some iotion of the extent of the. liabilities involved i is y of the Army, Navy and Maritime Compis- indicated: by Woot submitted to’ the Congress indicating : The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals i is. postion: __ larly unjust in that.employers, such as those in the steveder- ' . ing industry, “would. suffer liabilities solely because. they _. have exceeded their legal obligations beadding thereto Jia- :_ bility to pay a similar rate for work performed at night and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. And on the Pacific _ Coast the injustice would ‘be even more. oppressivé since a— “ greater liability would result solely because an award of ae Presidential Board, for purposes identical with those of the” re _ statute, imposed upon our week a, six-hour day. instead of an eight and a thirty-hour ‘week instead of forty. -In ‘the-Portal-to-Portal Act df. 1947, ‘Congress declared | + the ‘practical policy against interpretations of the law in disregard of long established customs, practices and con- _ tracts | ercating unexpected liabilities, impairing. the re- sourees-and even threateninghé solvency of employers and — conferring windfalls on employees ‘in. excess of their. con-— ' traet rights? That policy applies with at least equal foxce in the cases row before this Court and fully supports the conclusion reached by the Distriet Court. . --~, ° CONCLUSION. - For the foregoing reasons and other. reasons set forth in — the petitioners’ brief the Waterfront ‘Em loyers “Assoc ocia- va tion of. the Pacific Coast respectfully urgés s that the « a6 Hearings before Suleouneites No. 4 of thé Meus Committee on Education and Labor, November 17-25,- 1947, verbatim tran- seript, Bypfau of National, Affairs, PP. 65) 146, 224. Po - a . . ° / . - j m 3 j ° ° no \ . t ~ 6 t e ; - —o , ! 4-* es a e ‘ = Se : > , : . i "s \ 23 - . 4 ae ¢ “2 e ey a . v . . ae. sion ue the Cireuit | Court of Appeals in this case be set ors ; : -aside and the decision of ahe District Court be. reinstated. eee |S . a . a “ . . ; * ea > oe Weer Respectfully submitted, Ss Eee Ec a | “3 - 3° 4. Waterrront Euprovens Assocuttios OF 4 | | ? rae Paciric Coast zee nh ps Po Bp ‘A. Harrisox 7 each Af >: 111 Sutter Street : ; f 4 Be - San Fran¢isco, . California: Rie te Ae et Se a V 1LuIAM EY ae trae MESS arn cae Se Mary L. Scuieirex - _ Skee eens Pecans Lae ere) a eS ae >; SE aR as eS oe, Mats CE ey re Sod | ede ig ; “Its Attornéys. °° chee) lenge oe si, x 3 ? . . 2 7 2 z . * “. - P : e + ~ ’ ° ‘ F ‘ os ° : - a ¢ bd . * s . ey “a ° . Ld ° SS ° \ - ‘2p ‘ ganized employees for such extra working time is often’ ‘known as “punitive overtime,’ the trade. union theory being that it is: usually unnecessary’ and always unde- sirable to have overtime, and that the increased rate of » payment is a penalty against the employ er and intended ‘to act as a deterrent.” : ny . ‘\ ? _In L@ or and: Social Organization, written by Richard a oes Lester ind David A. ‘McCabe, published in 1938: . ao “Nhe union method of ‘enforeing’ #bservaiice ot the normal day. upon employers is to set a high jurly up to tht normal number. The overtimé rate is ustially Gouble time’ (double the normédl.rate) .for the s or half days not included:in the normal working week: These are known as ‘punitive overtime rates.’ ‘They allow ¢the employer: to work {PF -men overtime in _ emergencies but impose a tax to insure that it is an,” “emergency. This practice has led to the charge ‘that in demanding a shorter workday the men are aiming not so much at‘a reduction-in ‘actual hours as at an increase — - in.the daily wages. However, most unions frown upon = men working overtime regularly while other members .gf the union are unemployed. (p. 72)! 45 woe, irate os in Industrial Rela ns in 4s Building Ijdustry, published in 1930, says “(p. . as‘a means of, protecting workers against unduly long ©. hours .and of. penalizing employers W pe require such ig hours. "> (pp. 38- 39) a 2 The views of labor leaders were summar ized at the turn of the century by tlie Industrial Commission, whith gon: | - /uded : unionists is strongly in. the direction of. emphasizing ‘the importance of a shorter-work day. The most progressive leaders, such as Mr. Gompers, of the Fed- eration of Labor, are constantly ‘urging their associates _to put the shorter. work day in the forefront: of their - demands. our hours is and control: your’ trade and ‘shorten your hours, is their position, and wages will “take care of. themselv oss oe E * *. * “By ertime work and werk on Sundays and holidays are snecial cases of extension of the hours of. labor. is The position of the labor leaders logiéally requires that ae all work outside of: regular hours-be abolished. This is “The general drift of opinion among. Amer iean trade a in fact the desire of all the more: progressive union men, . ° and the desire which is almost universally expressed in the collective action of the organizations. 4 Bis : . “The stronger orvanizations usually secure a higher rate of pay for work outside of regular hours. ‘The: Building trades in particular get time’ and a-half, and, '.“ sometimes. double time.. The Lithographers and Core Makers have national rules requiring time and a half, - A Bulletin No. 283, Bur. of Labor Statistics, " . Reports. of the Industrial Commission on Labor. Organizations, ‘Labor Disputes and Arbitration, U. Ss. ‘Goy t. Printing Office, 1901, Vol. YT, pp. XLV I-XLVIT. ede ; © ~~ ‘and similar rulg“Aare’ enfo~ced. by the local unions: in “many trades. “A curious 1. lication of the feeling -- against owrtime is furnished’ by the Wood Workers. They insure their members against loss of tools by fire - or "accident, but they pay tio loss which is-incurred a. is hd on Sanday or after reg- ular rking hours.’’ * : . A well- kiorwn labor attorney ‘and student ‘of labor: policy, Elias Liberman, or labor’s s objections to overtime © as follows ;: ree. “Organized labor seeks to discourage ov ertime. ‘It ‘ment; it runs counter to the ‘spread-the-work’ prin- ciple; it aggravates the problem of unemploy ment; it — endangers the health of, the Workers, it interferes with - normal living. |For thesé reasons labor insists that overtime restricted pa be paid-at.a higher rate than -. the regular hours. Because of these limitations, the employer will make use of. « ov ertime only in cases of . absolute n essity. sap tnte Be | :. /* : ee ae Stocktor ,in hig ia Lia the Molders’ Union, states ‘that “the natio al officers haye always tried to’ discourage — * overtime because it ‘takes work away from the unemployed’ and because tired men cannot\do good work.’’ (p. 167) Press, 1932 states ‘‘Reduction of hougs has been one of. the two major demands of labor i in the United States. -_ idk : Ibid, pp. XLVII- xLvaTl. York; 1939, p. 155. : ' : ' ST he International Molders’ Union. : ait: gee ¢ontends: that overtime shortens the period of employ- : ‘Marion C. Cahill in Shorte HoursgColumbia University = : 28 Full- Time Average Hours of Work Per Week Per Worker .. #p Maaptacturing." “Bureau eee pee es Labor National Indust*ial Census of | -: Year... Statistigs Conference Board : Manufactures’ Hee (0) -(f) 1909 . er : aes > Te ee ee a Rs eS 1920 * - 47.1 Bok: : ‘1921 fo 45.6 1922 - oe Be ee 49.2 1923 LV 4(3.° , 49,2 2. | eee 45.4 ° = ee a . ~ 1925 a > oe ac «Sees 1926 a 46.5 ae ar 48.1 (ait 1927 * 46.3 capers Si § c ea Bude Tans 1928. - 9 eae 47.9 — BS oe ae 1929, . .. “45.7 . A 4B3~ 1930 . eee 7a 1931 41.7 40.4 1932 . 38.2 ee | ayaa ee bee 1933. ; Sea 36.4 ae ea 1934 |" 34.5 34.7 Ps 6! NB. eee Es @, 1936 | ek «Se Ceneeeemay Rae oo Spar 2 * 38.6 acces” pido ae. 1938 Ot” Se Las... eeemernpmede ‘ 1939 -.. oo eee 3 Genre *. 37.0 att Ssiomon Fabricant, Employnient in. Manufacturing, 1899-1939, National Bureau. of Economie Research, New York, 1942, p. 234... | o ey, s 5 . 2 / Bere He APPENDIX ©. and After Specified Clock Hours. As early “as: 1876, ‘according to Stockton,! thie molders thought it necessary. to support the ten-hour rule witha statement that the hours must be — een 7 am. -and 6 pa in. (pp. 161, 167). The United Brdtherhood of Soedios W scale on Sake ; ‘s Goods at the: tarn of the’century was concerned with ‘estab- lishing an 8- hour work day. Its views on viting the work Sa day were expressed. by the following: “The- rules of the _ union forbid ‘members to w ork ‘more than 10 hours a day. The 10 hours are to be be- -tween.7 a.m. and 6 p.in. The Brotherhood has declared _ itself im favor of establishing an ‘8-hour. day at. the earliest possible moinent. . ee RS Another example of. a prohibition: of work at certain hours is found in the agreement between the. Carpenters’ E xecutive touncil of Chicago and Vicinity and T. Nichol- son and Sons Co. in’.1899. ‘Eight (8): hours shall consti- - tute a day’s’work befween the‘hours of 8 a:m. and 5 p:m., except Saturday, .when work shall cease at 12 0 ‘clock. noon.’”* ' Canada provided ‘that all work doneoutside of the hours of the agreed schedule i is to be. considered. ov ertime and to be paid time and a half.’ The agreement between the Master Steam aa Hot Water ’ * Fitters’ Association of New. York City and the Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Ww ater, Sprinkler, Hydraulic, a 7 The I shiva Molders Union. * Report of the Industrial ‘Commission on Labor Organizations, Labor Disputes ‘and _— Vol. XVII, p. 308. 3 Ibid., p. 384. ; ; ‘Ibid; p. 115. - Baly Union Contenels Requiring Daily Overtime Before ool The constitution of the Lifhcaraphors’ Inter national Pro- 7 : tective and Beneficial Association of the United States and | 7 yee time FA oi ~ 30 ~ and General Pipe Fitters of Now York City, made i in 1 1900, prov ided :. | c) : “The wating day shall consist of eight (8) hours between eight (8) o’clock aan: and five ) o’elock p.m. with one (1) hour for-lunch, exeept on Saturday during . the months of June, July, and August; when the time shall consist of four (4) hours betwe een eight hee: o’clock _ a.m. and ‘twelve (12)-noon. at ‘“‘The working day above named shall he known as regular time. and shall be time actaally employed at. -work. ‘‘Rule No. ca 3 “Any, work done between five (5) 0 ‘clock pn. ‘and —_. eight (8) o’eloek-a:n.;‘and on Sunday, New Year'’s Day, LincoJn’s Birthday, W ashington’s Birthday, Memorial » Day, —- of July, Labor Day, Election Day, Thanks- giving = Christmas. Day, ‘and the Saturday half holiday shai lial ' A: provision is included in ye contract bite the Hamilton County (Ohio). Carpenters’ District Council and . 296 A drastic. provision against yorkie: ontaide of. specified . as was embodied i in the contract entered into on “May.1, 1899, between the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers’ Pro- paid for at double the rate of regular Te the Master Carpenters’ Exchange, “That working liours - shall be from eight (8) é’clock-a.m. ‘to twélve (12) o clock m. and from one (1) a ‘clock. “p.m. to five (9). 0 'elock p.m. s tectiv e and ‘Benevolent Association’ of New York and vicin- ity and the Employers’. Association of, Roofers and Sheet — we Metal Workers of Greater New -York and Vicinity. ‘All work done betwéen the ‘hours of 5 o’clock p.m. and:8 o’clock 5 Report of ‘the Industrial eanibiien on ‘the Relations and Con- ete., es XVII. *am., and Sundays, New Year’s Day, Lincoln’s birthday, . W ashinigton's birthday, Decoration Day, ‘Fourth ‘of July, - ditions of Capital and Labor, U. ‘S. Gov't Printing Office, 3901, Vol. VII, p. 941. Ces 6 Report of the Industrial Commission on Labor Organizations, a Ee PO ae OE A, Be wy 31: * Labor Day, Election, Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas _ ‘Day, shall be, paid at double rates: of regular time.’’? .¢ The agreement entered into on April 1, 1899: between ‘the Master Painters’: Associztion of Troy, New York, and Yeinity, and local union No. 12, Brotherhood of Painters and Decorators of America, at Troy, New York, illustrates. a similar attempt to penalize work at certain hours of the . day. . ‘‘Article 3" states: ‘‘That 8 or 9 hours. shall con- stitute a day’s: work the same, to be performed between — 7 am. and 6 p.m. 7 and that after p.m. overtime must he paid. 998 ; SRN econ eee A limitation upon the hours of the day that ean be worked is also found ‘in the agreement of the Concord Granite Manufacturers’ Association and the Concord branch of the. _ Granite Cutters’ National Union, for the period ending May 1, 190%. ‘Kigitt hours shall constitute a day’s work, to be worked between the hours.of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m... . 7"? The agreemenggxpiring.June 1, 1901, between-the large breweries of St. BBuis and the Brewers’ und Malters’ Union * ‘No. 6 at St. Louis provides : ‘*Nine (9) consecutive heurs shall couistitute a day’s work: With the exception of load- _ ing beer, work shall not commence before. seven’o’clock in. the morning and last not longer-than till five o clock nam,*? A contract’ for the vear 1899 between the loc al lodge ‘of. - € lectrieal workers in Washington and the employers pro- vides. as follows :. | ; “Rule 1. The hours of lak wy shall be eight hours per _ day, to-be performed between the hours of 8 a. and- 5 pan, for five.days per week, atid from’ 8 a.m. to 12. noow on Saturdays. Rule 2.-That all work done be- tween 12 m. and 5 pan. on-Saturdays be paid for at double the rate of wages: Rule,3. Any labor per- formed before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. shall be paid for at double the: regular rate of w ages.’ Seal 7 Jbid. Vol. XVII, p. 394. ew : race ee § Thid, Vol, XVII, p. 398: ; 7 3 * Ibid. Vol. XVII, p. 399. is Ibid. Vol. XVII, p. 410. ; ee ‘Ibid. Vol. XVII; p. 415. ——_——$—————— —_ asa YG me | 32 he a ¥ e : | */ APPENDIX D. | en from Publications Showing the General Under- standing at that time of the Character and Purpose of ' Regular and Overtime mates in the oe In- dustry. - According | to the New York _— of Otte 1, 1918; - “The demands of the International ngshoremeti’ 8 “Association, which represents 35,000 mgn in the ports. - of New York, Boston, Norfolk, Newport News, Balti- more and Portland, are for.an ‘eight hour day at $1.00 __an_hour and $2.00_an_hour for-overtime-and-Sundays;— They are now getting 50 cents:‘an hour for a nine hour ' day, and 75 cents an hour for ov ertime: nd $1.00 an . hour for Sundays and holidays.”’ _ ‘The parties were unable to reach ‘an agreement in 1918. and the issues in dispute wére submitted to the National Ad- _ justment Commission, a government b. y appointed during World War I. ta settle disputes involving longshore work- 2 ers. Discussing the demands.of the longshoremen for the - following year, Dr. B..M. Squires, Secretary of the Na- tional Adjustment Commission stated, ‘‘ The demands were fora ‘basic rate ef $1 on general cargo as against the exist- ing rate of 65. cents an hour, and for an ov ertime rate of ? 1 According tothe New. York Times of September 13, 1928, Pe #2 as against $1 an hour: ‘under mre agreements, ge “Yesterday the steamship committee offered: to base - i a new contract on the old wage scale of 85 cents an hour | _for regular time and #1 oo an hour for overtime.’ - The New Y ork Herald-Tribune of September 16, 1930 re- ported : “*No increase was demanded i in wages and. the walk: ers were content to ask for a renewal in the face of the - none too.prosperous condition: of the industry. -The _. Sentimeng was that with a forty- four-hour working a B. M. Squires, ‘‘ Peace Along the Shore,” Survey,-Aug. 2, 1920." week, the pr escent 85 cents an hour and $1 30 ov ertime pay was a good’ figare.’’ oa the Journal of Commerce; ‘September 18, 1930: Heat this meeting it was agreed that the 1929 stale should be renewed for the year beginning October 1, ‘with the exception of the revision of, on@lause. Under the agreement longshoremen receive 85 cents an hour regular time and #1 30. an hour overtime. i.) - Similar expressions. occurred i in the following r years. “The present wage scale beeame effective on’ “Octo- ‘ber 1 last year after the stexship employees and the union representatives had wrangled for several weeks. ‘The men lly_agreed. to reduce the overtime, scale from $1.30 to $120'an hour, but they succeeded in hav- ing the —— hourly pay of 85 cents an hour con- tinued. thes “The Steasaghip. group first offered the men a 20. per. - cent eut to 68 cents an hour and 96 cents for ov vertime, ‘but this. was quickly rejected by the workees.’’ ; “The. deeyiwater. Steamship companies cuipkiiing” the New York Shipping Association yesterday voted to * - submit a new wage offer of 7 iD cents- ant hour and. $1.00 © ‘an hour i. gue fe ee Bap , a — * “Later the-eoipanies were ready to pay the men 79 _eentsan hour and $1.05 for ov ertime. te **The present agreement went into. effect on October ; 1 last and expires at the end of this month: It calls for a forty-four hour week at -the rate of 85 cents an hour straight ‘time and $1.20 an haut fot-overtime. Al though Mr. Ryan was‘ non-cgmmittal it was learned ‘from other union sources that the I. L. A. will demand. $1 an hour, $1.50 overtime and a thirty-hour week.”’ +. - 2New York. ‘Herald-Tribune, September 8, 7. SER Ree er ie : 2 Thid: September 141908." 2 : * Ibid. September 20, 1932. a Ee * Ibid. September 24,1932. - = me “New York Herald-Tribune; September-7, 1934, aie “Mr. Ryan declined. last night. to announce’ ‘details of the wages which men will demand, but in labor circles it was said that. they would ‘have’ a basis of $1 '- af hour for a thirty-hour week and $1.50 an hour over-- .. -." hour for-a forty-four. hour ~—— and = ‘for ov ér- ‘time. The contract now in effect calls. for 85 cents all time.’’? en Se ‘after extadea snail in, which Mr. i said the men sought a thirty:hetir week to provide more _eniployment for; th¢ir fellow workers ms a wage of $1 an hour and 50" for overtime.’’*® ‘‘ Demands for an increase of SAE EEE oe ep Sg _ ™New York Herald- ron 15¢ an hour overtime and a. forty-hour week’ are : submitted to the New York Shipping Association Mi day by the International -Longshoremen’s Associa- — - tion. These’demands were formulated yesterday ata meeting of the wage scale committee at 164 Eleventh Street? The present scale is 95¢ an hour regular and - ‘ $1.35 an hour overtime for afofty-fqur hour week. Thé new scale will be $1 an hour regular time and $1.50 an. * hour overtime. The scale will rey to all workers , from P ortland, Me. to Hampton oads. 79 - Barlier in the day the North Atlantic district dide- ~ gates discussed their proposal to shipowners. for a re-~ duction in hours from forty-four to forty a week and. an increase in wages from 95¢ to $1 an hour, with over- ne time raised from‘$1.3a to $L50 an hour.”’ 10 $e \.. “The ‘Association jast week drafted demands which Se > cluded increases in the hourly wage from 95 cents to 3 $1 with $1.35 to $1, 50 for overtime.’"™ e contract which is effective Oct. 1 for one year, ides for fhe ca -. working wee}, the mén to receive $I an hour. for the nuance of the forty-four hour, ° = ‘regular week and $1.50 for: overtime work. They are. paid 95 cents and $1 st! an. hoot overtime under ‘the a na agreement nt w ine Sie: hepecieher 8, 1934. September 29, 1934. - eptember 11, 1936. ~ ~ § Jourrial of ,Commere * Journal of Commerce, : . te Journal” of Commerce, ptember 18, 1936.- : 11 New York Times, SeptemDer 18,1936. = 12 New ‘York Times; Septembed\19, 1936. a i : oe instal trem Testimony o nion n Representatives Before : the National Longshoremeni’s Board: in 1934 ‘Urging . ' thirty-hour av erage per | week? - ets + "66 -believe it is four weeks.’’ one or two weeks, way: ‘a maximum limit of 120, hours_contained in a ruling conceivably be put 36 one week,.but we hope. it will not be. ~ case of a rush and.of something unusual occurring: in a-week, the men can work,as long as necessary, pro- - viding that the end of the: ‘four. weeks it will av baie . cup. maximum, naturally.. That is provided for, as it has , been from time immentgrial, ‘by overtime: rates’ after . the normal shift has been exceeded. They: are: not going to‘ insist on any Ay SEE shift per week. If. it is‘necessary for the:men es Vol. 8, pp. 398- 399. r in three weeks, but at the end ~ of the fourth week his ‘average would be thirty hours - per week. In other words, you might well put. it this © “That is to i in might exceed ‘thirty hours in, ““Q. [Mr. “McGrady] I ‘suppose that means s that: ie “A. That is’ right. ‘Wherever possible the med would like to see the shifts limited to a-reasonable: . ecause of a rush of: work to. "work ‘longer .than. 30. hours a week the men have no -- objection. They feel, though, that in the long run-an - - equitable distribution should be worked out so that. - over a four-week period the 30-hour week should be : the maximum.’ Let: me put it this way: After-a man . i Trinsecigt of Proceedings before ‘the ee Léngshoremen’ ae wh “4Q. (Mr. Cushing] What do you mean by your |The issues as Adaea aamiain. SOD oe proposal that the maxitinum hours, of labor be limited : * .to thirty hours per week averaged over a period of I four-week period. ‘These 120 hours might under that: Establishment of the. Six-Hour REE ET. ea eas , At, the hearing. before- ‘the National es or — | Board, Mr. Melnikow , Fepresentirig tlie International Long- ss shoremen’ 8 Association, testified :! Ul oe eee a eile: * has worked 120 hours during a, four- week period. the men feel that he should be permitted to rest, and let my, _ another man work in his aes so as to distribute the ie: work as evenly as possible. Pr it , ys Q* [Mr. Cushing] Now, i in order that I- ‘may un- | = — derstand- your-six-hour proposal, is it your i ‘idea that "in this proposal there should be men available enough .— ..in the industry to replace any man after he shall have worked six hours? | . _ “A. [Mr. Melnikow] ‘Yes, I think that, the LL. A. is willing to do its utmost .to give the employers the . number of men required at all times. - .. “Q. T am not referring to the ILA. I am referring ' . to the question as to whether or not the ‘six-hour ‘rate . = overtime after six hours is designed to in-, crease the wages or to prevent the working of men in® exeess of six: hours. ~~ ae Ati re of the 1. 3. A. to encourage the a ut in six hours when- erever possible. As I have stated, I believe a the: I. L.A. -will underfake and is in a position tq fur- “Tish the men to take the place of those who have worked - the six hours. ~ - ‘ ee * nd ; ® : . *Q.'[Mr. Paice} Is it not a fact that owing to i fact that. there were too many men on the waterfront, . : and we speak specifically.of San Francisco, as shown - 7°. oe Employers’ owit figures ‘who claim there are too ~~ many men, that the only way in which you could puta ~ . spréad of work. progr am in was throug th a limitation of the hours? Bates? GS Melnikow] 1 think that is almost mathe-. matically true.’ Mr. J. Singer, also representing the. ‘International Long: -shoremen’s Association, further testified at.the hearings in’ Portland: 2 ean ieee ee oak. Eo ' 6Q3 {Mr. MeCulloeh] On the question 6f the 6 hewe , day and the 30 hour week, I understood you to. advocate _ - “2 Tbid., pp. 422-498. --- *Ibid., Vol. 15, pp. 22-23. \ | *y ; ee. ¢ that i in the Wrerest « of spreading atiplpymeat as widely as possible? ) “A. [Mr. Singer] . That is i **Q. Will you explain w advocate tlie. payment In othér words, to the: vat the same time, you me and. half for overtime? tent that overtime is engaged, down? “‘A. As far as the overtime is concerned, I always figure the feason that tiere is a penalty put on over- - time is-to keép away i the overtime proposition. That is why all trade labor movements have asked for _ requiring. you to work overtime, As far as I am con- "cerned, I would rather not work overtime.’ A. ' "a “* _. e i 4 “Qe [ Mr. MeCulloch As I understand it, then, the - -’ employees have no real objection to the 8-hour day ex-. - cept that it does not. —— the work far enough or . ‘* among enough men? — -“A. [Mr. Singer} That is just the: reason why we are asking for the 6-hour day. We are objecting to ghe ‘+ 8-hour day because’ there is not enough. work to go around. Be **Q. That is. 5. what I understoed and that is ‘sie you advocate the reduction ftom 8 hours to 6. hours? ‘‘A. Surely. It is not to get the overtime.’” — _— ae Tey ‘Tbid., Vol. 15, p. 24, Aye A ee renee -—-is-not_the- opportunity for- spreading employment. cut Ps _ a penalty on overtime, in ordex to keep fhe, boss from --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0042%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.