Skip to main content

Full text of "Work materials ..."

See other formats

•^ a lltf 9 2 








Work Materials No. 45 falls into the following parts: 

Part A 
Part B 
Part C 
Part D 
Part E 


Control of Hours and Reemployment 

Control of Wages 

Control of Other Conditions of Employment 

Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act 

MARCH, 1936 


WORK ljaterials 110. 45 

I ARCH, 1936 



This foreword introduces all of the sections of Tork Materials No. 
45, The Labor Program Under the NIRA. 


In order to meke possible the mimeographing of the various sections 
f ~ork Materials Fo. 45 it was necessary to send to the mimeographer 
each section at the time it was corrraleted by its author. The limitations 
of tine and personnel necessarily caused this program to be carried out 
in a somewhat disjointed manner. It is, accordingly, appropriate to set 
forth in this forc'crd tie entire scledule of the studies which appear 
in "~ork Materials "o. 45. This schechile apoears on the following page. 

In addition to the various studies in ~orl: ; aterials "o. 45 a con- 
siderable number of other studies deal with various aspects of labor. 
Trie following "Tork : aterials are particularly worthy of listing in this 

Tork Materials 

•3 Financial and Labor r ata. on the "omen's Neclcvear and Scarf 

4 Report of Com.'.ittee on Iconomic end Social Inrolications of 
the Company Store and Scri^ System 

5 Report of the Special Commission of ""age differentials in 
the Cap and Cloth Hat Industr 

6 Report of Special Coir^nission on 'ages and Fours in the Fur 
Manufacturing Indust r / 

7 Statistical Background of NBA 

8 National Labor Income By Months — 19 '9-1935 

9 "ages and ".ours in American Industry — NBA Source later ial 
10 d.eport of Commission for Coat and Suit Industry 

12 Employment, Payrolls, hours end Tages in 115 Selected Code 

15 Production, Prices, Employment and Payrolls in Industry, 
Agriculture and Railway Transportation, Jan. 1923, to date 

GO Substitutions in Connection with tr_e President's Reemploy- 
ment A fc reemeat 

35(b)La"oor Provisions i? C">c"i 

40 Prison Labor Problem Under NBA and the Prison Compact 

4? Legal Aspects of Labor Problems — i inimum "^ages 

47 Data on Average "'"eekly a ad Average Hourly Earnings in Se- 
lected Manufacturing Industries By States - 1933- "5 

59 Sheltered Workshops Under NBA 

61 A Study of Wholesale Trades Under NBA 

: n ? The President's Beemployraent Agreement 

83 An Analysis of tb.3 FBA Census 

86 Pigest of Child Labor Lavs of the States 

At the back of this report will be found a. brief statement of the 
studies undertaken by the Division of Review. 

L. C. Marshall 
March 28, 1936 Director, Division of P.eview 

9850 -i- 

Worl: Materials No. 45 




1. Limits of Coverage of Labor in Industries Closely Allied 
to Agriculture Under Codes of Pair Competition under NIRA 


1. NRA Policies, Standards and Code Provisions on the Basic 
Weekly Hours of Work 

2. Employment and Unemployment — 1929-1935 

1. Introduction and Minimum Wage Policy 

2. Policy on Wages Below the Minimum 

3. Policy on Wages Above the Minimum under the NIRA 

4. Wages Above the Minimum in the Men's Neckwear Industry 

5. Migration of Selected Industries as Influenced by Area 
Wage Differentials in the Codes of Fair Competition 

(a) 3oct and Shoe 

(b) Cotton Textile 

6. Wage Trends in Prosperity and Degression Prior to FRA 

1. Child Labor Control under NRA 

2. Safety and Health Work under MA 

3. NRA and Industrial Ho.aework 

4. The Owner-Operator Problem and the National Recovery Administration 

5. The Posting of Labor Provisions under the NRA 

1. Section 7(a); Its History, Interpretation and Administration 

2. Partnership Towrrd Recovery, Section 7(a) as a Method 

9850 -ii- 




Roorrt M. Woodbury 

i -larch, 1936 






A. The Problem 2 

B. Limit s of Present Report 2 

C. Features of the NIRA Important for this problem 2 

D. Features of the AAAct Important for this Problem 3 




A. Delegation of Powers to Secretary of Agriculture 6 

B. Reallocation of Industries 8 

C. The Problem of Agricultural Labor 11 

D. Unions in Borderline Industries 15 



A. Definition of Agricultural Labor 15 

B. Definitions of Industries in Codes 25 

C. Summary: Areas and Types of Conflict 26 


A. Effects Upon Codification and Compliance 28 

B. Estimated Effects Upon Workers 28 

C. Conclusion 29 


I. Uncodified Industries Involving Delimitation of 

Agricultural Worker s . 30 

II. Codified Industries Involving Delimitation of 

Agricultural Production or Agricultural Workers 31 

Notes to Table I and II 32 


"Report of the Interdepartmental Committee Appointed to 
Investigate Labor Conditions in the Florida Citrus Industry. "35 



Agri cu 1 tural labor war exe.mte* from the P3A, although farmers who 
complied with the reouirenents were entitled to be allowed to display 
the Blue Eagle. 

Labor engaged in agricultural production was outside the scope of 
the h?A, since under the law "s enacted b- Congress, agricultural pro- 
duction appeared to be exempted from iTPA jurisdiction. 

The writing of labor provisions for industries engaged in processing 
of agricultural products — principally food products— was- subject to 
special delays and vicissitudes arising from conflicts in policy and 
interest between USA and AAA in drafting codes for this industry group. 
In accordance with a special provision" of 2JIBA, all the industries en- 

r :- r in processing of agricultural products were transferred, for code 
purposes, late in June, 1933, to the Secretary of Agriculture, except 
th t the '~~A retained jurisdiction over the labor provisions for all 
these codes. Very few codes for these industries had been approved ^oy 
the end of 1933. On January 3, 1934, the major group of Food Industries — 
all subsequent to first processings — were transferred bach to NBA. A 
second group was left under the Secretary's jurisdiction as before, and 
a third group was placed under lOA, subject, however, to the jurisdiction 
of the Secretary with res-nect to certain Questions, such as ->rice and 
production control, in which the Secretary of Agriculture had a direct 
interest. After this reallocation of the codes, codification proceeded 
more rapidly, 

A definition of agricultural labor was agreed to by the ITRA and the 
AAA. The definition had the effect of encouraging a disinclination 
among industries employing labor of the same general type as agricultural 
labor to Present codes, and caused difficulties in a number of 
where enterprises e roloj'ing labor of this class proceeded uoon the 
assumption that such labor wr.s not industrial. 

Each industry had to define its coverage in such a way as to be in 
accord with the act and to give a fair definition within the limits of 
which the sponsoring bod";' must he "truly representative", ho code de- 
finition -as approved which specifically excluded agricultural labor. 
Definitions were commonly drawn in such tern.; that all operations which 
night he classed as agricultural were excluded. In all of in- 
dustries the codes of which were under joint jurisdiction of both the 
EPA and the AAA, the definitions had to satisfy both administrations. 
In many cares the industries raised, no objection to having all their 
labor, included under the terns of the codes. 

The net result, in general, was to leave in agricultural production 
a fringe of varying coverage in the border zone. Sone industries were 
reluctant to seek codes when the conditions of codification were learned. 
Some industries could secure no adrenuate representation over the near- 
agricultural Operations. Other industries raised no objections to having 
their labor working under ERA code provisions. 



A. The Problem 

The coverage of labor under FIRA Codes of Fair Competition can be 
viewed as one of the principal proximate objectives of the program of in- 
dustrial recovery. Codification of industry with restriction of hours was 
a major means of providing reemployment for the millions out of work. A 
review of the program in terms of the coverage of labor, — the passive ben- 
eficiary of the industrial recovery program, — shows its limitations and 
shortcomings in failure to provide protection to labor, which is an import-* 
ant aspect to be considered in an appraisal of the program as a whole. 

Whether or not workers employed in industry Were protected by labor 
provisions entitling them, if employed, to receive at least a minimum rate 
of wages, to work not more than a. maximum number of hours, and to enjoy the 
benefits of any of the so-called safeguarding provisions depended in first 
instance upon whether the industry was under a. code of fair competition, or, 
in case of the so-called blanket code, upon whether the individual employer 
signed the PRA or a substitution approved, for his industry. Within the codi- 
fied industry, coverage of labor was dependent, furthermore, upon definition 
of the industry and upon the special exemptions of the code. 

B. Limits of Present Report 

The present report is limited to a small section of the whole field, 
namely, the field of the industries and trades handling and' processing 
agricultural products and in agriculture itself. In this field, the pro- 
blem of the coverage of labor differed from that in industry generally, . 
first because agriculture itself was apparently not included in the scope 
of the 1 T IRA, and secondly because of the conflicts between HRA and AAA in 
their policies affecting the codification of these industries in the border- 
land zone. Within this general field, the present study is further restrict- 
ed *o the special problems 'presented by the delimitation of the borderline 
between agriculture and industries handling and processing agricultural pro- 
ducts and in particular to the definition of agricultural labor. 

C. Features of the IIIHA Important for this Probl 


The HIBA provided a plan for the recovery of industry. Its objective 
was stated in terms of industries and trades rather than in terms of pro- 
tection of labor in specific occupations. The plan provided in essence for 
the -voluntary presentation of codes by industries; the codes contained 
minimum wage rates, maximum hours, and safeguarding provisions for the protec- 
tion of labor, as well as the required clauses of Section 7(a). Whether or 
not workers came within the scope of these benefits obviously depended in 
first instance upon whether the industries employing 'them were codified. (*) 
A second important point is that the code for en industry was required to be 

(*) Though the Act included provisions for imposition of codes upon 
industries (Section 3(d)) and for imposition of codes of labor 
provisions after investigation (Section 7(c)), no codes were im- 
posed upon industry. 



submitted "by a truly representative group. Industries which were opposed 
to bein.i codified did not present codes. The terra industry was interpreted 
as meaning the emnloyers. A third feature of the 1TIEA which should be 
mentioned, was the s.-f eguards for tl: interests of farmers. These were of 
two tyoes. One clause mrovidea that sthin- in the 1 T I3A should prevent a 
farmer from marketing or trading the -u-odaee of : is own farm. (*) Another 
provision authorized transfer of industries in the borderland zone between 
agriculture, and industry to the Secretary of Agriculture for -nurooses of 
code formation and ftd.dnistratior. in order to avoid conflicts of policy 
between hRA and AiLi on matters in which the farmer had an interest. These 
features are di?cussed in detail in the renort. They are mentioned here 
merely to call attention to the concern for the farmer interests on the 
part of Congress. 

D. Features of the AAAct Important for this Problem. 

Tie Agricultural Adjustment Act, enacted in the same -.cried as the 
hIRA, was intended' to promote the interests of farmers, in particular to 
bring eoout s raising of purchasing power of farmers relative to the pur- 
chasing ^ower of industrial units. The means were oy restriction of pro- 
duction and raising of trices of agricultural commodities relatively to 
others, subject, however, to measures for protecting consumers from too 
high rices of agricultural nrod'ucts. The AAAct itself did not mention farm 
labor. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the organization subject 
to the Secretary of Agriculture to which the carrying out of the Act was 
entrusted, tool: the nosition that the interests of agricultural workers 
would be amply safeguarded as s consequence of the benefits to be enjoyed 
by the farmers who employed them. A final point should be noted is that 
in the delegation of power under the 7 IRA to the Secretary of Agriculture 
for purposes of formation and ac^nini strati on of codes, the authority which 
the Secretary of Agriculture and the AAA exercised for these purposes was 
derived wholly from the hIRA. The ->ur-oose of the transfer was to harmonize 
policies end to protect the interests of farmers in developing and administer- 
ing codes for industries in which farmers and agricultural interests were 


The 1IIEA, as its name implies, was intended to -iromote industrial 
recovery. The interests of farmers we:'e taken care of under the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act, massed by Congres- during the same neriod. The conclusion 
seems reasonable that Congress did not intend that codes of fair com-- et it ion 
under the hIRA be set up for farmers or persons engaged in agricultural pro- 
duction. (**) That no such codes' could be set up under the requirement that 

(*) Section 5. 

(**) In this connection it is of interest that the Bureau of Agricultural 
Economics drafted a code to be an dicable to agriculture and agricul- 
tural labor; at the same' time it recommended that no such code be 
adopted. Also the le to al division of the AAA held that a code cover- 
ing farm labor was authorized under the Recovery Act. ho such Code 
was submitted by any groun of farmers to nlace their labor under code 



the sponsorin _. body should be truly representative is obvious. A corollary 
equally clear is that labor employed in agriculture or in agricultural pro- 
duction could expect no protection under codes applicable to agriculture: 
no such codes were ever submitted. 

The workers thus for all practical purposes excluded from the scope 
of the industrial recovery program comprised all the farm laborers who work- 
ed for farmers and fsrm operators, numbering, at the census of 1930, nearly 
two and three-fourths millions (3, 733,000). (*) In addition to these, all 
the tenants, half a million cash tenants (489,000), 'end over two million 
other tenants, share croppers, etc. (2,175,000), (**) were excluded from 
the benefits of the recovery program, except that in the crop reduction 
program an attempt was made to insure that the share croppers should receive 
part of the benefit accruing on account of crops, principally cotton, which 
were plowed under. 

The group of farm laborers is substantially unorganized. Farmers. as 
a class are op osed to any form of lpbor organization. Attempts of the 
I.W.W. in the past to organize the migratory harvest hands have helped to 
give farmers a distaste for unionization of farm labor, a sentiment which 
deepened into hostility because of the tactics of the I.W.W. group in pull- 
ing strikes at critical times during the harvest season. (***). As a result 
perhaps of this negligible unionization, the specific problems of agricul- 
tural laborers received little consideration, in Congress in the framing of 
the SIEA and the AAA. 


The terms of the PRA, which was authorized by Section 4(d) of the NIRA, 
were obviously not designed to apply to agricultural labor. (****). 

(*) Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1950, Population, Vol. 7, 
Occupations, p. 40 

(**) Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Agricultural Vol. II, 
Part I, ;-o. 36-37 

(***) For a discussion of unionization among farm laborers, see Folsom, 

Josiah C, Farm Laborers in United States Turn to Collective Action, 
Yearbook of Agriculture, 1935, U. S. Department of Agriculture, pp. 
180-181, p.' 190. 

(****) The occupations listed in paragraph (s) comprise "accounting, cler- 
ical, banking, office, service, or sales employee (except outside 
salesmen) in any store, office, department, establishment, or public 
utility, or on any automotive or horse-drawn passenger, express, de- 
livery, or freight services, or in any other place or manner,... and 
in paragraph (3), "factory or mechanical worker or artisan". Also, 
the limitation of hours to 40 in any one week would represent a rad- 
ical departure from farm practice. 



This was made clear in Interpretation Fo. 6, issued in Bulletin 

#4 which states: 

"The 'following, groups o; . t < re not 
intended to he covered by the PEA, .. agri cul- 
tural labor. " 

However, in Explanation Up. 2, included in the same Bulletin, the 
right of fanners to the Blue Eagle is confimed provided they comply 
with the terms of the Agreement. (*) With respect to Agriculture, no 
PRA substitution was issued. (**) 

(*) ":HA Bulletin ho. 4. What the Blue Eagle Means to You 
s id How You Can Get It, run. 1., 31. 

(**) Substitutions were not issued unless a code had first been 
.'presented by the industry 

Mr) • j . 

■ • . - : | -■ 



It is necessary at this point to outlin th- special arrangements 
for codification, of th- industri -s in th zone bordering upon agricul- 
ture . 

A. Delegation of Powers to S cretary of Agriculture. 

With r ! s-n j ct to th trades and industri s engaged in handling 
oror processing of agricultural commodities or products, th-" NIRA 
provided that, in order to avoid -possibility of friction and of 
conflict ov j r policis arising b-itween the NRA and th 1 AAA, the and functions of th£ Pr 5 sid nt in carrying out the NIEA 
as appli 'd to th^se trades and industries might he delegated to the 
S cretary of Agricultur -.. (*) Pursuant to this authority, the 
President, hy Executive Dffdejr dated June 26, 1933, (**) delegated 
to th Secretary of Agriculture all th^s j powers and functions 
with th important exception of those r lating to labor provisions, 
with r spect to thes^ industries. 

Tii industri s were defined in Sxecutiv - Ord r ; ( /6182, Jun j 26, 
1933,(***) as those "engaged principally in th handling of milk 
and its products, tobacco and its products, and all foods and food- 
stuffs". The industries ar : specified in mor- detail in Executive 

(*) Section 8(b). The Pr sident may, in his discretion, 

in order to avoid conflicts in th administration of the 
Agricultural Adjustm nt Act and this title, delegate any 
of his functions and pow rs und-^r this titl- with respect 
to trades, industries, or subdivisions thereof which are 
engaged in the handling of any agricultural commodity or pro- 
duct thereof, or of any competing commodity or product thereof, 
to th Secretary of Agricultur . " 

(**) Executive Ord r #6182, Jun 26, 1933. 

(**»!) "Purusant to the authority vested in me by Title I of the 
National Inc.ustrial Recovery Act, approved Jun 16, 1933, 
I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Agricultur all the 
functions and powers (other than the determination and ad- 
ministration of provisions relating to hours of labor, rates 
0I " P a y» a nd oth-r conditions of -mploym -nt) vested in me by 
said Title I of said Act with respect to trades, industries 
or subdivisions thereof engaged principally in the handling 
of mild and its products, tobacco and its products, and all 
foods and foodstuffs, subject to th ; requirements of Title 
I of said Act, but reserving to m.- the pow-r to approve or 
disapprove of the provisions of any code of fair competition 
■nt t- d in accordanc- with Titl ■ I of sai6 Act. This Order 
is to remain in effect until r voked by me." 



Order 6345, dated October 20, 1933.(*) This order also provided 
that in case of disagreem nt ovr whether an industry was subject 
for purpos s of codification to fh. S-eretary of Agri culture, the 
controversy might by s -tti d bj agre -m-nt b te-n the heads of the 
NRA and th AAA, or, failing ouch agre m nt, by th- President. 

(*) Executive Order 6345 of October 20, 1933 stated in part: 

"...-Executive Order No. 6182 of June 26, 1933,... is hereby 
amended so that, in addition to the trades, industries, or 
subdivisions th=r^of th-rin ^-numerated, there shall be in- 
cluded th following trades, industri s, or subdivisions 
th r^nf : 

1. Industries, trades, or subdivisions thereof (including 
agricultural produce and commodity exchanges and similar 
organizations) -^ngag-d principally in the handling of any of 
the following: 

(a) Agricultural commodities (including liv stock, poultry, 
U.<r-b aring animals and bees, and flowers and nurs-:ry stock, 
but xcludin fe forest products oth-r than nuts, fruits, sap, 
gum, and oils) up to the point of first processing off the 
farm, including all distribution, cl-aning, or sorting 
ginning, threshing, or oth r separation, or grading, or cann- 
ing, pivs -rving, or packing, of such commodities occuring 
prior to such first r-roc = ssing. 

(b) Human and animal food (including beverages, confection- 
ary, and condiments) and all substances or preparations used 
for food or entering principally into tn composition of food. 

(c) Nonfood oro-uiets of grains; inedible animal and vege- 
table oils and fats; naval stores; feathers, hid^s, and furs; 
brooms; or hog-chol-ra s ?rum. 

2. Industri -s, trad s, or subdivisions thereof, =ngaged 
principally in the crushing of cotton seed or flax seed. 

Ii a question should a.ris ; as to whether or not any specific 
trade, industry, or subdivision thereof is or is not within 
th-: 1 terms of Executive Ord: r #6182 (as supplemented by Ex- 
ecutive Order #6207) and/or this order, the question shall 
be finally and condlusively det rmin >d by agreement between 
the 'Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the 
National Recovery Administration; or, if they do not agr 'e, 
then tn question shall b" submitted to the President, whose 
decision th = r- on shall be final and conclusive. 

This order shall not apply with r sp'ect to any trad-, industry 
or subdivision th r^of for which a cod of fair competition 
lias heretofore b^en apnrov"d by me =xc pt as may hereafter 
be oth rwise determin d by agreement betwe j n th-. S cretary 
■ of Agriculture and th J National Recovery Administrator..." 


Betwe n th- issuanc- ofSx-cutiv Ord ?r #6182 and January 6, 
1934 but six cod-s (*) w-r- approv-d for the industries falling 
within th j jurisdiction of th- Agricultural Adjustment Adminis- 
tration. During th- sarn p -riod 196 Ore -s w r approved under 
the National Recovery Administration, Th Agricultural Adj.ustm^nt 
Administration had a mandat to promote and protect the interests of 
farmers; among oth-r policies th- Agricultural Adjustment Administra- 
tion sought: 

(l) protection of consumers and farmers, if necessary, 
by r gulation of industry which .included permission to 
scrutinize books and records- (2) elimination of groups 
of workers who might be termed agricultural, from the 
scope of cod^s; (?) -limination of industries from NRA 
codes which might be de-med to fall within the. scope of 
agricultural production. (**) 

Industries which sought cod's refused to agree to Agricultural 
Adjustment Administration's stipulations with r -sp-ct to r j ports and 
availability of r cords. A? a r?sult, codification, including that 
of labor provisions, in th s -, industries was checked. 

S. Reallocation of Industries 

Pres.sur- bj the industri-s which desired cod-s led to issuance 
of -Executive OSder #6551 (***) of January, 1934, which transferred back 

(*) These wer~: 

Beet Sugar (Manufacturing) LP-1 Octob er 3, 1933 

Date Packing #490 November 11, 1933 

Southern Rice Milling LF-5 November 21, 1933 
Commercial Breeder & 

Hatchery LP-6 December 27, 1933 

Retial Food & Grocery #182 December 30, 1933 

Wholesale Food & Grocery #196 January 4, 1934 

(**) Cf. Agricultural Adjustment Act. Title I. Sections 1 & 2. 
Public No. 10, 73rd Cong. 48 Stat. 31. (1933) The AAA 
insist id upon th- inclusion of a clause which would 
permit-access to th books and records of any employ r 
subject to a joint code by the Secretary of Agriculture 
or his agents. 

(***) Executive Order #6551 of January 8, 1934 stated in part: 

"...All th functions and powers heretofore delegated by said 

Executive Orders to th- Secretary of Agriculture ar> hereby 

transferred and delegated to the Administrator of the National 

Reoov ;ry Administration exc a ptin & only as follows: 

1. Th 3 functions and now rs transf -rr^d and delegated 

insofar as they relate to industries, trades, or subdivisions 

th 'T^of which are -mgaged -principally in th- s handling, pro- 
(Footnote continued) 


to National Recovery Administration codification of all enterprises 

footnote continued. .... 

(**%) cessing, or storing of agricultural commodities, principally 
domestic, up to and including the point of first processing • 
and the subsequent sale or disposition by the first processor, 
(hereafter for convenience referred to as 'first processors') 
shall not, without the written approval of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, be exercised through the fixation or control 
of — 

(1) Prices in connection with the purchase of 
agricultural commodities from producers and the subsequent 
sale or disposition by first processors of the first pro- 
cessed articles. 

(2) Brokerage fees involved in the of 
agricultural commodities from producers and the subsequent 
sale or disposition by first processors of the first -processed 

(3) Credits and financial charges with reference to 
agricultural products. 

(4) Commission rates in connection with the 
of agricultural commodities from producers and the sub- 
sequent sale or disposition by first processors of the 
first processed articles. 

(5) Purchasing arrangements with regard to 
agricultural commodities in their original form. 

(6) Marketing quotas in connection with the pur- 
chase of agricultural commodities from producers and the 
subsequent sale or disposition by first processors of 
the first processed articles. 

(7) Plant capacity and/or its allocation. 
This limitation Upon the functions and powers trans- 
ferred and delegated if. established in order that such 
subject matters may be dealt with by the Secretary of 
Agriculture under Section 8 (?) and /or (?) of the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act without conflicting with 
the exercise of such functions and powers by the 
Administrator of National Recovery Administration. 

The industries and trades or subdivisions thereof 
covered by this Section I of this Order arc limited to 
(a) those listed in Sxhibit A hereto attached and here- 
by made a part hereof and (b) such other first process- 
ors as have not heretofore filed codes pursuant to the 
National Industrial Recovery Act. 

II. The functions and powers transferred and dele- 
gated shall not include those relating to the following 
industries, traces and subdivisions thereof, but such 
functions and powers with respect thereto shall continue 
to be delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant 
to and in the manner set forth in Executive Order no. 6182, 
as supplemented by Executive Order Ho. 6207, and 6345: 

1. Commodity exchanges. 

2. Industries, trades and subdivisions thereof 
(Footnote continued) 



in question subsequent to first processing. In these industries code 

Footnote continued. • • 

(*'**) engaged principally in the handling, processing 
or storing of — 

(a) Milk and its products, but excepting 
packaged pasteurized, blended, and/or 
processed cheese. 

(b) Oleomargarine and vegetable oils, but 
excepting soya bean oil. 

(c) Cotton and cotton seed and their products, 
including ginning, cottonseed crushing, 
cottonseed oil refining (excluding the 
manufacture of textiles and processing 
and handling subsequent thereto.) 

3. Industries, trades, and subdivision thereof 
engaged principally in the handling, processing or 
storing up to the point of first processing and the 
subsequent sale and disposition by such processors 

(a) Livestock and its products. 

(b) Wheat, corn, rice, and other grains, 
self-rising flours, cake flours, and 
like products sold in grocery store 
sizes, and grocery store products of 
co rn . 

(c) Sugar and its by-products 

(d) An ti cholera hog serum and virus. 

(e) Naval stores. 

(f) Tobacco and its products. 

4. Fresh fruits and vegetables and poultry and 
poultry products up to and including handling in 
wholesale markets and the subsequent sale and dis- 
position by such handlers in wholesale markets. 
Provided, however, that the functions and powers re- 
ferred to in this section II shall be so exercised as to 
harmonize with the exercise of similar functions and powers 
with respect to other codes approved by the Administrator of 
the National Recovery Administration; but any functions and 
powers reserved to the Secretary of Agriculture by this section 
II so far as they relate to industries, trades or subdivisions 
thereof which are engaged principally in the handling, process- 
ing, or storing of agricultural commodities up to and including 
the point of first processing and the subsequent sale or distri- 
bution oy the first processor, shall not, unless the Secretary 
of Agriculture otherwise decides, include or affect the sub- 
ject matters referred to in subclauses (l), (2), (3), (4), (5) 
(6), or (7) of Section I of this Order. 

(Footnote continued) 



formalation and determination of labor provisions went forward. The 
Secretary of Agriculture had no further jurisdiction over them or their 

The remaining industries were divided into two groups. One group 
of industries principally engaged in handling, processing, and storing 
agricultural commodities up to and incliiding the point of first pro- 
cessing were transferred- bach to National Recovery Administration with 
the proviso that approval by the Secretary of Agriculture was required 
for provisions relating to a series of specific questions, including 
price, production control, brokerage fees, market quotas, etc. A 
second group of industries was left unchanged as to jurisdiction, with 
the Secretary of Agriculture in charge of all except the labor provi- 
sions, which latter were in the cnarge of the National Recovery Adminis- 
tration. A list of the industries in each group was given in Exhibit 
A in the Executive Order, and a provision for settlement of disputed 
fields by agreement between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Admin- 
istrator cf the National Recovery Administration was also included in 
the order. 

C. The Problem of Agricultural Labor. 

The industries included in the first group were, with the 
exception of the Florist and Seed concerns, fort no most part not 
concerned with the problem of agricultural labor. There were seventeen 

Footnote continued 

(***) III. If a question should arise as to whether or not 

any specific trade, industry, or subdivision thereof is, or 
is not, within any of tne terms of provisions of this Order, 
the question shall be finally and conclusively determined 
by written agreement between the Secretary of Agriculture 
and the Administrator of the National Recovery Administra- 
tion; or, if they do not agree, then the question shall be 
submitted to the President, whose . decision thereon shall 
be final and conclusive. " 



industries enumerated in this group; of these, seven became wholly or partly 
codified. (*) .• 

The industries of the second group, on the other hand, included a 
number of cases where the problem of agricultural labor pas important. 
These included among others the Egg and Poultry, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 
and Refrigerated Warehousing Industries, Meat Packing, Stockyard Operators 
and Livestock Marketing Agencies and other industries approached the issue 
at certain points, for example, as to their employees handling livestock. 
Man~ r in cur. tries even in this group, did not appear to touch the question of 
agricultural labor. (**) Besides these, and not listed as belonging in 
either^ category, were industries which claimed to be outside the jurisdiction 
.of ,'ational Recover;'" Administration entirely as engaged spiel;/ in agricultur- 
al production or employing solely agricultural workers. In this category, for 
example, was the Citrus Growing ana Packing Industry. Cotton Ginning was not 
listed in either group. (***) 

(*) The list of industries in Exhibit A of the Executive Order #6551, of 
January 8, 1934, is as follows: TJhere a code for the industry was 
ao"} roved it is given below in the column parallel with the list of 



Beans - (Dried) Shippers 

Broom manufacturing 


Feed - Retail 


Hides and Skins Dealers 

Peanuts - Millers 

Pecan Distributors 

Pecan Shellers 

Pickle Packing 

Pop Corn Manufacturing 

Potato Chip Manufacturing 



Seed Producers and Shippers 
Soy Bean Oil Manufacturing 
Vinegar Manufacturing 

Broom Manufacturing #455 
Canning #446 

Raw Peanut Milling #203 

Pecan Shelling #528 
Pickle Packing #524 

Preserves, Maraschino Cherry 
& Glace Fruit #460 

Seed Trade #547 

f **) 

an a 

(***) continued on next page. 


-I. — 

(**) end (***) Footnotes continued frou previous oage. 

(**) As to codes alreacy filed, the following industries were listed in 
this group in the Executive Ord i- ; 151: 

Anticholera hog serum 

Corn Miller 
Corn Products 

Cotton Exchange — Fe\ York 
Cotton ^-change - Few Orleans 
Cotton Traders 
Cottonseed Crushing 
Cottonseed Oil Refining 
Egg and Poultry 
Feed, Efey and Straw Distri- 
Feed Manufacturers 
Fruits ond V'eget bles - Fresh 

Grai n-Coun t r r El ev; tors 
Grain E. char ;es 
Grain-Flour Hilling 
Grain-Terminal Elevators 

Hog Exchanges 

Linseed Oil 

Livestock Marketing A ■ •■ 

Oleoma rg: rine 
Poultr~ T Breeders 


Stockyard Operators 

Sugar Exchange s . 

Sugar (Feet) Producing 

Sugar Refining 

Tobacco, Cigar Manufacturing 

Tobacco Leaf Dealers 

Fr rehous e , Co t ton 

Warehouse, Ref "igerated 

'■■'■ ise, 

Ft r 3I10 '- e, < b -co 

Aiiti-Hog Choi re, ^erur.i & 

og G3aoleiT-i-7iras Induct 17' LP-7 

ITew York Live Poultry LP-12 

Feed Manufacturing LP-16 
Thole sale Fresh Fruits 

and Fe. etc bles LP-1Q 
Country Grain Elevators LP-19 
Grain Exchanges LP-17 
Tneat Flour Milling LP-17 
Grain Exchanges LF-8 

(inc. Terminal Grain 

Linseed Oil LP-11 

i 1 u . Industry LP-22 

Commercial Breeder 

Hatcher" - LP-S 
Southern Filling LF-5 

Beet SU( ;ar LP-1 

Cigar [anufacturing * ;. l 4S7 

Refrigerated "r.rehousing * -499 

Auction and Loose Leaf 

lobe.cco Farehousing LP— 18 

..arehouse, Fool end Mohair 
The following list (not necessarily erdiaustive) is of industries in 
this group for which no codes had been filed at the binie of the Executive 
Order, (January 8, 137,4): 

Footnote-, ^**) and (***) continued on next page. 


771 th regard to the six codes approved prior to January 6, 1934, 
none of them with the possible exception of the Commercial breeder and 
Hatchers'- Code toudhed the problem of agricultural labor. Shis code re- 
stricted the industry to the "busines of hatching and/or selling on a 
commercial scale, "Chicks" or "started chicks", "baby ducklings" or "turkey 
poults" hatched for sale," and included within its scope every employee of 
any individual or corporation engaged in the business as so defined. ITo 
question of exclusion of so-called agricultural labor was raised by the 

Footnotes (**) and (***) continued. 


Cigarette Manufacturers 

Ice Cream 
L& Ik, Fluid 
Milk, Evaporated 
Meat Packers 
Ka.val Stores 

Transferred to iJRA 

Cigarette, Snuff, Chewing 
Smoking Tobacco * #549 

(***) The so-called labor provisions codes incliided a number in the 

Brewing and Distillery group, which were considered as belonging 
to the group of reserved codes, as follows: 

Distilled Spirits 
Distilled Spirits 

Alcoholic Beverage 

Alcoholic Beverage 

Line Industry 


LP -13 




The administration of these codes uas transferred to the Federal 
Alcohol Control Administration. 



L . Unions in borderline Ince st r les 

These industries '-;ere for the most part not unionized. Hovever, 
this group of industries included .nan/ which" yjere industrial in chc.ra.cter, 
and as their labor was drawn frop towns and cities, the opportunity for - 
organization increased. In citrus packing, there -ere strong local un- 
ions. The canning factories had locally organized grouos. In some in- 
dustries labor was partly organized; in some, rival unions disputed the 
field, as in the Chicago stockyards. As f whole, however, the fe-T exist- 
ing unions in these industries ^ere weak and localized; and labor had no 
strength to press its demands or meke its position felt in the contro- 
versies over codification policies, (*) except through the Labor Advisory 
Soard of the NBA. 


In the determinetion of the limits of coverage of labor in industries 
bordering upon agriculture and agricultural production, t-'o lines of de- 
velopment must be traced. In the first place, the AAA sought to exclude 
all agricultural labor from the scope of NBA co: es. In the second place, 
each approved code contained a definition of its industry. This defini- 
tion sn.C to ■ . ~ -.1 to the industry of which the £roup sponsoring the 
code -as representative, and of course, had to co r:^ly with the limita- 
tions of the hII\A itself. To conform -ith the hIBA, it had to exclude 
agricultural production. In case oi all the joint codes, and for practi- 
cal purposes in case of all the reserved codes, part of the provisions 
of which required the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture, the defi- 
nition had to meet the approval of both the AAA and the NBA. 

A. .definition of Agricultural labor 

In the following discussion the history of the controversy over the 
definition of agricultural labor is sketched from its origin through the 
stages of code negotiation and administration. 

The ouestion of jurisdiction over agricultural labor was first pre- 
sented to the KBA and the Labor Advisory hoard in August of 1933; The 
citrus fruit growers and packers of Florida wished to know whether they 
-ould. oe subject to whatever code the NBA might approve for the Fruit 
and Vegetable Industry or whether the Citrus Industry itself was expected 
to submit a code. The" urged that the labor they employed did not come 
\.\itihn the jurisdiction af the NBA, on the ground that it -\ s "agricult- 
ural labor". A brief description of the industry will help to clarify 
the issues. (**) 

(*) Cf. Folsom, Josiah, C. , Farm Laborers in United States Turn to Col- 
lective Action, in Yearbook ox Agriculture, 1935, p. 190. 

(**) For description of the Industry, see Report of the Inter-departmen- 
tal Committee Appointed to Investigate Labor Conditions in the Flo- 
rida Citrus Industry. Appendix I. 



These citrus growers operated large farms or groves where oranges, 
grapefruit, limes and lemons were the principal crops. (*) The regular 
staff, or grove labor, was engaged in such tasks as plowing, hoeing, fer- 
tilizing, pruning and spraying. The workers for the most part were not 
given maintenance ._ They lived in to-ns and were transported to their 
work in the groves. Though the work was of the traditional farm type 
the labor market from which the employees were drawn had the general 
characteristics of that for industrial workers. 

During harvesting season the cutting or picking of the crops was 
performed by "wickers", who in most cases were employed by packing houses. 
They reported for work to the packing houses and "-ere transported to the 
groves, moving from niece to place as the work required and at the direc- 
tion of their employers. They were paid niece rates. They, too, lived 
in the to^ns and were hired in the ordinary labor market. 

At the packing houses, situated for the most part in the towns, la- 
bor was employed to clean, grade and pack the fruit ready for shipment. 
These mere factory operations, often performed with the aid of conveyor 
belts and other mechanical eouipment. The packing operation was not ".ag- 
ricultural wroduction" but clearly fell within the limits of "handling 
an agricultural commodity". 

The citrus packing houses wished to have -11 the labor, including 
the packing house labor, declared "agricultural" and exemoted from the 
scope of the National Recovery Administration labor codes. Had a consid- 
erable proportion of the crop been cleaned, graded and picked in the 
groves by employees of the grove owners, the work would doubtless have 
been classed as a part of the ordinary farm operations in "preparing uer- 
ishable agricultural commodities for market in original perishable fresh 
form" (**) Actually, the operations of picking as well as those of pack- 
ing were performed by employees of the packing houses. These establish- 
ments were usually under different ownership from that of the groves, 
and their function of handling was clearly distinguishable f rom t he pro- 
cess of growing the fruit. 

The KRA tended to cover all wage earners in all codified industries 
and in all establishments operating under the PRA, save only those spec- 
ifically exempted. Accordingly, if the Citrus Packing Industry was sub- 
ject to a code, all employees of this industry were subject to the labor 
provisions unless they were exemoted by the terms of the code. But the 
Citrus Packing Industry, of course, wes not recuired, except from the 
pressure of public opinion, to apoly for a code, and in that event, the 
labor employed in that industry would not enjoy the benefits of coverage. 
So far as concerned the type of labor involved, the work appeared to par- 
take of the character of industrial rather than of agricultural labor. 

(*) For description of the Industry, see Report of the Interdepartmen- 
tal Committee Aopointed to Investigate Labor Conditions in the Flo- 
rida Citrus Industry. Appendix E. 

(**) Language contained in the so-called original definition, see next 



The AAA had no mandate to raise labor standards. (*) In fact, its 
focus upon the farmers' problems and interest in reducing his costs at 
times led to policies that seemed contrary to the labor objectives of 
the National Recovery Administration. Since the Agricultural Adjust- 
ment Administration had received from the President delegation of his 
powers and functions over the food industries, except for provisions 
concerned vith labor, it sought to adjust conflicting interests through 
definition of agricultural labor. The definition, drafted by the Chair- 
man of the Labor Advisory Eoard, (**) of the National Recovery Admin- 
istration, read as follows: 

"Agricultural workers are all those employed by 
farmers on the farm '"'hen they are engaged in grow- 
ing and preparing for sale the products of the soil 
and/or livestock; also, all labor used in growing 
and preparing nerishable agricultural commodities 
for market in original nerishable fresh form. When 
workers are employed in processing farm products or 
preparing them for market, beyond the stage customar- 
ily performed within the area of production, such 
workers are not to be deemed agricultural workers." (***) 

Though this definition was signed by members of both Administra- 
tions, no Executive or Administrative Order appears to have been issued 
granting exemption to agricultural labor. Though the definition was 
thus drawn up and approved, the purpose seems never to have been car- 
ried out by formal action. (****) 

(*) Farm labor is nowhere mentioned in the Agricultural Adjust- 
ment Act, The Agricultural Adjustment Administration took 
the view that farm labor would benefit a.s a result of the 
benefits received by farmers. 

(**) Dr. Leo Wolraan. The definition was approved by Charles 
Brr.nd, Co-Administrator of the Agricultural Adjustment 
Administration, and Wayne C. Taylor, Executive Assistant 
to Co-Administrator George Peek. 

(***) Release #401, August 19, 1933. 

(****) TJnd-er the terms of the Executive Order No. 6345, dated October 
20, 1933, on questions of "whether or not any specific trade, 
industry, or subdivision thereof", '--ere or were not within the 
scope of the delegation to the Secretary of Agriculture, agree- 
ment between the .Secretary and the Administrator would determine 
the point. Prat .this order had not been issued when the defini- 
tion "as agreed upon. Further, it '■as an agreement not as to 
industries to be covered, but as to an occupational class. The 
fact of the agreement, however, may have hindered the NRA from 
attempting to set it aside. 



Nevertheless, in many quarters the definition appears to have been 
accepted as establishing the line of demarkation between industrial and 
agricultural labor. The citrus growers immediately interpreted it as 
meaning that they were not expected to present an NBA code. The Labor 
Advisory Board staff regared the definition as of sufficient importance 
to warrant issuance of a revision. The Industrial Appeals Board in 
an opinion on the Tovrea Case (*) passed on the question of whether 
the employees concerned were or were not within the definition as thus 
promulgated. (**) The NRA. itself appears to have, in part, regarded 
the existence of the definition as an obstacle to the coverage of 
workers who might under it be termed agricultural. On the other hand, 
when it came to incorporating the definition of agricultural worker 
in the codes as a exempt by the statute, the NBA Legal Division 
objected. Also, the attempt of particular establishments to avoid 
paying minimum code rates on the ground that certain of its labor was 
agricultural under the definition was opposed by compliance or en- 
forcing officers. 

This definition was unf ortunate'ly worded in respect to the term 
"area, of production". Failure to define "Area of production" opened 
the way to interested parties to claim that the area of production 
included areas cf subsequent processing. This loose phrase gave 
color to the conclusion drawn by the citrus operators, that their 
house labor, though clearly an industrial process involving the "hand- 
ling of an agricultural commodity", was agricultural labor since it 
was performed within the area of production. 

The AAA itself subsequently interpreted this definition as author- 
izing exemption, as agricultural labor, of workers engaged in hand- 
ling and processing operations subsequent to agricultural production 
if employed within the ;" area of production". 

The unions of workers in the citrus industry wired in to ascer- 
tain whether the protection of the National Recovery Administration 
was to be denied them. The staff advisers of the Labor Advisory Board 
held that the definition as promulgated was not intended to, and did 
not, e::ciude packing house workers from the scope of codes under the 
National Industrial Recovery Act. The ambiguity of the definition was 
at once recognised. To clarify the meaning, the wording of the defini- 
tion was altered and the phrase, "on the farm", substituted for the 
former expression, "within the area of production". With this change, 
the definition was broadcast in a press release dated September 8, 

(*) See below, p. 27. 

But this case came under the PRA, under which an official 
interpretation exempted agricultural labor. 



1935. (*) 

The Agricultural Adjustment Administration however, apparently- 
interpreted, the earlier definition as excluding the porkers in cit- 
rus packing houses from the scope of a code of labor provisions. They 
refused to agree to- the. subsequent definition given in the press re- 
lease of September 8, and proceeded, with the negotiations for a market- 
ing agreement without reference to a Rational Recovery Administration 
labor code. 

To secure first hand information. upon which to base judgment as 
to the conditions of work, a delegation was sent to the citrus fields 
of Florida in February, 1954. (**) The Commission held that grove 
workers should be deemed agricultural, while pickers and packing house 
employees should be considered industrial workers. (***) 

Meanwhile the Agricultural Adjustment Administration issued two 
marketing agreements for citrus fruits although there -was no code of 
labor provisions for the. industries involved. (****) One agreement, 
effective December 14, 1933 covered citrus fruit from Florida and also 
oranges and grapefruit gro-'n in California and Arizona; the other, 
effective December 26, 1933 concerned oranges and grapefruit from 

(*) Release No. 692 - September 8, 1933 

" 'Agricultural workers' are all those employed 
by farmers on the farm when they are engaged in 
growing and preparing for sale the products of 
the soil and/or livestock; also, all labor used 
in growing and preparing perishable agricultural 
commodities for market in original perishable 
fresh form., TJhen workers are employed in pro- 
cessing farm products or preparing them for 
market j be^owd the stage customarily performed 
on the farm, such workers are not to be deemed 
agricultural workers." 

(**) The commission included William J. Woolston, for the 1TRA, 
Isador Lubin, of the Department of Labor, Francis M. Shea, 
oi the Department of Agriculture, and Harvey Cox of the 
Natiohal Labor Board. 

(***) Report of the Interdepartmental Committee appointed to 

investigate conditions of labor in the Florida Citrus in- 
.fcyy pp 4 and 5, -Appendix- B.. 

(****) The AAA took the position that Marketing' Agreements, as 

distinct from Codes of Fair Trade Practice provisions, were 
independent of Cedes of Labor Provisions. 



The Poods Division of the Labor Advisory Board of the National 
Recovery Administration urged general acceptance of the revised de- 
finition. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration took the position 
that the original definition of August 19, 1933 had "been approved "by 
both the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Ad- 
justment Administration, and that, being so approved, was the of- 
ficial interpretation. Then the National Recovery Administration re- 
affirmed the original definition, leaving (*) the connotation of "area 
of production" still unsettled. 

Six months later the issue again arose, this time ruth respect 
to the cotton ginning industry. The ginners wished to exclude prac- 
tically all of their employees from the code labor provisions on the 
ground that they were agricultural workers. • In many cases the same 
Negro farm hands who picked the cotton in the fields were also em- 
ployed in the cotton ginning operation. Where the identical in- 
dividuals were not hired, others with the same general agricultural 
background were employed. The operators urged that higher wages paid 
to labor in cotton ginning would affect labor costs in the cotton fields, 
since the workers would demand the same pay. The Agricultural Adjust- 
ment Administration supported the industry in this contention. 

The National Recovery Administration, on the other hand, was 
faced with similar but opposite problems in the possible tendency of 
lower paid cotton ginning labor to pull down industrial wages rates 
for somewhat similar tasks or to present problems of unfavorable com- 
petition through lower wages costs to industrial employers. The 
National Recovery Administration consequently insisted that labor in 
the cotton ginning industry was industrial and subject to a labor code. 

The Advisory Council of the National Recovery Administration, 

(*) Divisional Administrator George L. Berry, with the approval 

of Recovery Administrator General Hugh S. Johnson reaffirmed 
the definition in Release No. 2781, of January 17, 1934, 
which stated: 

"Agricultural workers are all those employed by farmers 
ori the farm -when they are engaged in growing and 
preparing for sale the products of the soil and/ or 
livestock; also, all labor used in growing and 
preparing perishable agricultural commodities for 
market in original perishable fresh form, VJhen 
workers are employed in processing farm products 
or preparing them for market, beyond the stage 
customarily performed within the area of pro- 
duction, such workers are not to be deemed agri- 
cultural workers." 



to which the problem was referred, made the following recommendation 
that '(*:) 

"the status of an agricultural worker becomes that of an 
industrial worker whenever he leaves the land and enters 
any plant, factory, or other establishment in which 
agricultural products are processed or td re-oared for the 
marker." ' • 

This' attempted clarification', however, received 1 no subsequent official 
suiDDOrt from either the National Recovery Administration or the Agri- 
-cul.tural Adjustment Administration. The industry encountered diffi- 
culties in negotiating with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration 
for a marketing agreement. Neither a code nor a marketing agreement 
was adopted for the industry. 

In a draft code for ag'ri'cultural labor presented by the Bureau of 
Agricultural Economics the definition of agricultural labor read: 

"This code shall apply to all labor hired 
on farms to engage in agricultural production 
to the point of delivery of the products at 
the shipDing point, market, or storage, or 
nrocessing plant off the farm, including 
share croppers." 

However the Bureau also recommended that no code be adopted. Also, 
though the legal devision of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration 
held that a code for farm labor w a s authorized under- the Recovery Acts, 
no group of farmers submitted a code involving their labor; 

The application of these approved definitions and the course of 
the negotiations, involving farm labor, in. the Seed, Cotton Ginning, and 
the ?.efri.;'. elated Warehouse,.- and. the, Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable In- 
dustries further illustrate the issues. 

In the proposed code for the Seed Industry, a definition of agri- 
cultural labor was included in. the code as drafted for -public hearing. 
■ ■ f 

"The term agricultural workers as used herein 

means employees engaged in performing labor in 

the ,f ield in connection with the production 

and harvesting of crops, but does not include 

. workers employed in warehouses and cleaning 

plants engaged in the processing of seeds." 

This proposal led to correspondence between the FRA and the Sec- 
retary of Agriculture. The latter, 'in the interests of clarification 
of the issue,-, did not oppose its presentation at the -oublic hearing; 
he insisted, .however, that it should not establish precedent nor modify 

(*) ERA Advisory Council Decisions, Vol. I, #2, June 26, 1934. 



The National .Recovery Administration Legal Division objected to approv- 
ing a code containing such clause on the ground that agricultural labor 
was not specifically exempted under the Act. (*) 

Similar problems arose in the Refrigerated- Warehouse and Whole- 
sale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Distributive Industries. In .areas 
where fruit and vegetable crops we're prepared' for shipment or storage, 
the grading, cleaning, and packing vere performed in some cases, on the 
farms at the expense of the farmer; but the trend had been toward as- 
sumption of these operations by the packing houses and particularly by 
the- refrigerated warehouses. This custom had developed because once the 
fruit was in the warehouse, the operations of grading and packing could 
'be performed without pressure caused by imminence of spoilage. On the 
.farm such' operations had performed promptly in order to minimize 
losses-. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the industry 
■considered the labor engaged in grading, cleaning, and packing opera- 
tions to be agricultural and exempt from the labor provisions of 
National Recovery Administration codes, because the operations were 
performed within "the area of production". 

A case arising unt er the Refrigerated Warehouse Code in Yakima, 
Washington, led to a hearing (**) before the National Recovery Admin- 
istration. The specific issue concerned compliance with provisions 
of the Warehouse Code. The firms in question pleased that Article II, 
Section I, of the Warehouse Code excluded products governed by any other 
code and that its processes were governed by the Wholesale Fresh Fruit 
and Vegetable Distributive Industry Code. The latter code exempted the 
production, "preparation, assembling, or loading at point of produc- 
tion of commodities for shipment". The Compliance Office of National 
Recovery Administration, with administrative concurrence, had inter- 
preted "point of production" as the farm premises. (***) This was 
a different phrasing and meaning than "area of production" of the or- 
iginal definition. Although hearings to determine the facts at issue 
had been held in Yakima, (****) resulting recommendation had not been 

(*) See Memorandum of Frank Elmore on question of Agricultural 
labor. National Recovery Administration files. 

(**) On April 8, 1935. 

(***) See National Recovery Administration files. 

(****) At the hearing it was brought out that in California employers 
in a similar situation were satisfied to classify all their 
warehouse employees as industrial workers. Subsequent to the 
hearing at a conference between Agricultural Adjustment Adminis- 
tration, National Recovery Administration, and Labor Advisory 
Board, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration representa- 
tives were willing to agree that warehouse labor which handled 
fruit after it had been placed upon the moving platform for 
conveying to the warehouse storage shelves should be deemed 
subject to code, provided that labor which handled the fruit 
from the farm till it was placed upon the moving platform at 
the warehouse should be considered agricultural and exempted 
from the code. 


■ 24- 

made by the time of the Supreme Court decision in the Schechter case. 

In the Meat Packing Industry a similar problem of classification 
of workers as agricultural or industrial involved the limits of scope 
of the President's He-employment Agreement. (*) The Tovrea Packing 
Company, which was four miles from Phoenix, Arizona, raised the ques- 
tion whether its employees, who lived in Phoenix and worked in the, 
fattening pens adjacent to the plant, were subject to the provisions 
of the Meat Packers' President's Re-nmployment Agreement substitution. 
The issue concerned the classification o'f the work of fattening animals 
before slaughter as industrial or agricultural. (**) The Complaince 
office of the National Recovery Administration had held that the labor 
was industrial. (***) The company appealed to 'the Industrial Appeals 
Board on the ground that the employees were agricultural workers. 
Final decision by the National, Industrial Recovery Board was not rend- 
ered before the Schechter decision. 

(*) Under the PRA the Administration exempted agricultural labor, 
see above p. 

(**) In presenting a code the Stockyards Association had granted that 
employees caring for livestock in stockyards immediately prepar- 
atory to sale or slaughter were industrial employees. 

(***) See Memorandum of Prank Elmore on question of agricultural labor. 
National Recovery Administration files. 




Definition of the industry offered the normal method of settling 
the issues of coverage. Each code had to contain a definition .of the 
industry to which it applied. This definition had to conform with 
the requirements of the NIRA; this led to the exclusion of purely 
agricultural operations from the scope of the code. While and in so 
far as the AAA had jurisdiction over these codes in the "borderland zone, 
the definitions had to satisfy both AAA and NRA. Furthermore, the 
definition had to conform with the scope of the industry as represented 
in the association sponsoring the code. The code could not extend 
over an industry or "branch of an industry for which the association 
sponsoring it did not have adequate representation. Thus an association 
for pecan shelling could not cover the shelling of walnuts if there were 
no representation of the latter in the groups seeking the code. 

The following examples show code definitions drafted to exclude 
agricultural operations from the- scope of the codes. 

Pecan Shelling, Industry (Code I'o. 523. Art. II... Sec. 6) : 

The terms "Pecan Shelling Industry" "as used herein includes 
the processing of shelling pecans (exclusive of'paper shell pecans) 
from their natural state by cracking, and/or shelling, and/or 
cleaning, and/ or preparing for market the meats or kernels of said 
pecans and the sale thereof by the processors arid/or shellers. It 
shall not include individual farmers selling meats, or kernels of 
pecans, grown and/or gathered by them.. ■■ 

Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Ve ge table Distributive Industry (AAA ; 
Code i!o. 17, Art. II. Sec, l ) 

The terms "wholesale fresh fruit and vegetable distributive 
industry" and "industry" as used herein include shipping, receiv- 
ing, selling or buying, or offering to sell or buy, either as 
principal or agent, fresh fruits and fresh vegetables in whole- . 
sale quantities, but shall not include the sale or distribution 
of fresh fruits or fresh vegetables other than to a trade- buyer. 
The industry as defined shall not include the production nor 
preparation, .assembling, or loading at point of production of 
commodities for shipment, nor shall anything in this Code or 
regulations thereunder prevent anyone from marketing or trading 
produce of his farm. 

Refrigerated Warehousing Industry (Code Ho. 449. Art. II. Sec. 1 ) 

The term "Refrigerated Warehousing Industry" or "industry" 
as used herein includes the furnishing, for a consideration, of 
warehousing services and/or- - - storage for goods, wares and/or 
merchandise in any building or structure, or any part thereof, 
which is artifically cooled, except products which are governed 
by another approved code or codes. 


Auction and Loose Leaf Tobacco Warehouse Industry (AAA: Code Ho. 18 
Art. II. Sec. 4 ) 

The term "industry" means and includes the "business of 
operating a leaf tobacco warehouse for the sale of loose leaf 
tobacco at auction and, such related branches and subdivisions 
thereof as may from time to time be included under the provisions 
of this code. 

Of these cases, the first two placed the code's jurisdictional 
limit at the point of production. In the first instance the clause 
excluding farmers who shelled the pecans which they had raised had 
little effect upon the industry as a whole. Technically they 
could have been brought in under the code, according to an interpreta- 
tion by the Legal Division of the National Recovery Administration, 
but actually no, attempt was made to extend code coverage to include 
the farmer's incidental processing of his crop. Otherwise the wording 
of the code stayed well within the terms of industrial processes. 
The definition in- the. Wholesale ..Fruit and Vegetable Distributive 
Industry aimed to eliminate all fanners' operations. The other two 
codes were couched in terras that left agricultural occupations out 

In the Auction and Loose Leaf Tobacco Warehousing Code the 
labor was regarded as definitely industrial. The operations governed 
by the code were performed in agricultural communities, and the 
employees were drawn from the farms, returning there, when the ware- 
house work was over. From the National Recovery Administration point 
of view all the 'labor was industrial; and the industry entered no 
objections so to considering it. Another case where the jurisdictional 
problem created no issue was the Commercial Breeder and Hatchery Code. 
There, although the labor was largely recruited from farms and the 
majority of establishments covered were located on farms or in towns of 
less than 2,500, the industry never asked exemption from code provisions 
for its labor. Conditions in these two industries did not differ notice- 
ably from those of certain enterprises that raised the issue of classify- 
ing their employees as agricultural. Both industries had code wages 
rates substantially higher than those generally paid to farm labor. 
Neither was exceptionally prosperous nor free from competition. 


In summary, the controversy over the definition and inclusion 
of agricultural workers in codes of labor provisions assumed three 
main aspects. 

In the first place, the question arose as to whether an industry 
was subject to a code of labor provisions. This was exemplified in 
the case of the Citrus Packing House. Industry, which claimed that all 
its labor was agricultural and hence exempt from the NRA code re- 
quirements. The Executive Order of October 17, 1933 and of January 8, 
1934, provided that questions involving the spheres of jurisdiction 
of AAA and NRA might be decided by agreement between the heads of the 
respective .organizations, or failing such agreement, by the President. 
Few cases, however, fall in this category. 



Secondly, in case of an industry seeking a code, a question might 
arise as to the exclusion from the labor provisions of certain of its 
workers as "agricultural workers". This problem was met in practice 
"by a definition of the industry in terms to exclude such workers. 
In no case did a definition of agricultural workers as an exempted 
group appear in an NBA code. (Controversies over this question, so far 
as the letter of the Executive Orders is concerned, do not appear to be 
covered b: r the provision for settlement by agreement). Samples of def- 
initions of industries where the problem of agricultural production is 
touched, are given above. 

Thirdly, after a code was approved, jurisdictional disputes as to 
the extent and limits of NBA control might be raised by industry 
representatives, in trying to force their interpretation of the so- 
called original definition of agricultural workers. The existence of 
this definition caused dissatisfaction and misunderstanding on the 
part of employers and employees and raised difficulties with compliance. 
Strictly speaking, the applicability of the NBA code was a legal ques- 
tion for settlement through regular channels including Compliance, 
Industrial Appeals 3oard, N.I.B.3:, and the courts. 




A. Efiect upon Codification and Compliance . 

The net result of these controversies was in some cases to 
restrict the scope of the National Recovery Administration efforts to 
bring workers under code labor provisions. Since the codes were volun- 
tary, certain industries within the area of controversy simply failed 
to present codes. If a business considered part cf its workers to be 
agricultural and exempt from code provisions, National Recovery Admin- 
istration insistence that they were industrial sometimes caused hesita- 
tion to present any code. Consequently a point gained hy the National 
Recovery Administration in definition of an occupation might result in 
failure to secure codification at all. This became apparent in negotia- 
tions with food industries. The cotton ginners early withdrew from code 
negotiations, although in their case the argument for non- cooperation 
was based upon terms of the marketing agreements as well as upon the 
labor provisions. Other industries in which the known reason for not 
codifying was partly the issue of classification were the cigar leaf 
dealers and the florists. 

The problem of classification led to difficulties in secur- 
ing compliance. Uncertainty concerning inclusion of certain categories 
of workers encouraged further non-compliance pending authoritative 
settlement of the controversy. This situation was encountered in 

B. Estimated Effects upon Workers . 

The brief history of the National Recovery Administration 
brought to light a number of industries in agricultural areas, draw- 
ing their working force from labor similar to that working on farms, 
that took it for granted that their employees fell within the National 
Recovery Administration and applied for codes". Others, similarly 
situated, classified themselves as agricultural when confronted with 
the Recovery Program. Still others attempted to distinguish among 
their employees, classifying some as industrial and others a.s agricul- 
tural. How exhaustively the National Recovery Administration explored 
this borderline area there is no means of determining. Consequently 
the crude and probably highly inexact estimates of coverage (*) give 
some notion of the National Recovery Administrations' s administrative 
problem in this uncharted territory but merely a vague idea of the 
possible scope of the problem. ".That estimates are available give no 
indication of the number of industrial workers indirectly affected 
because they were employed in occupations or localities where the wages 
and other conditions of these borderline types of labor exerted competi- 
tive influence upon their own. Similarly their possible influence in 
pulling up standards of farm laborers is not measurable. 

(*) See Appendix B 


C. Conclusion . 

The consequence of the exclusion of agricultural labor from both 
the AAA and the 1T3A extended beyond the field of labor engaged in agri- 
cultural production and to labor engaged in certain of the borderline 
industries. The controversies over the topic were one of the causes 
which led to industries?, refusing to accept or seek codification. 
The extent of the influence of these controversies may be seen in the 
group of large and small industries in the borderline fields for which 
no codes were- approved. 

• ■ 







Employment reason for 
1933 no code 

Citrus Fruit Growing 
Citrus Fruit Packing 
Cotton Ginning 

190,000 A 
10,000 b 
90,000 - 100,000 BC 

Cotton Compressing 
Warehousing (AAA-NRA) 

30 , 000 


Cotton Seed Crushing 



Cigar Leaf Dealers 


000 - 50,000 



Tobacco Leaf Dealers 






'Workers claimed 
to "be agricultural 
by Industry or 




- (2) 




Pacific Coast Dried 
Fruit Drying 

Naval Stores 

Raw Gum 







A- Labor employed in agricultural production 

B- Labor claimed to be agricultural 

C- Trade practices insisted on by AAA or ERA not acceptable to industry 

D- Labor provisions not acceptable to NRA 

(1) Difficulty with codifying publicly owned warehouses 

(2) Question never raised by industry or bv AAA 

(3) Question raised by certain menbers of the industry only 

(4) Proposed code withdrawn on advice of counsel, on the ground of 
agricultutal labor 

(5) Sane type of labor as Cigar Leaf Dealers, but question never 





Estimated Ho. 
of workers 
under code 
Industry _ (1933) 

Wholesale Fresh Fruit and (l) 

Vegetable (AAA-NRA) 45.0O0 

Refrigerated Warehouse 9,ooo 

Auction and Loose Leaf Tobacco (2) 

Warehousing (AAA-NRA) 25,ono 

Naval Stores - Pinewood Distillation Branch 

(under Chemical Industries Code) 1,500- 1,900 

(1) Besides these, some 20,000 workers excluded on account of 
the agricultural labor controversy as workers "at point 
of production. " 

(2) Highly seasonal, figure for peak period. Issue as to 
exemption of agricultural workers was never raised. 





Table I 

Citrus Eruit Growing 

The Census of Agriculture for 1330 shows 46, 552 growers of oranges, 
20,553 growers of grapefruit, S,SUg growers of lemons and 58I growers 
of lines. Allowing for duplications, it is estimated that there were 
60,000 growers of oranges and grapefruit, with three or four thousand 
additional growers 0:" lemons and. lines, not included in the 60,000. 
The average number of paid employees of each grove is estimated at 
three. These figures yield a rough estimate of 150,000 employees. 

Estimated by taking 5O'/' 1 of the estimated number of employees 
engaged in packing all fruits and vegetables. The 1533 Wholesale 
Distribution, census reports 11,000 employees of Assemblers of Earm 
Products (*) which includes establishments maintained for packing, 
shipping and distributing agricultural products (mostly fruits and 
vegetables) but excludes packing and shipping operations by farmers 
or other producers directl; from their farms and orchards, (**) and 
6,500 employees of the fruit and vegetable Cooperative marketing Asso- 
ciations. ' The latter may include some not engaged in packing, but it 
is believed by the Census officials that the error due to these inclu- 
sions is balanced by the omission of packing employees who work for 
individual farmers. A small number of peeking workers may be 
employed by firms classified as "Wholesalers". The total of 17,500 
employees engaged in packing is an average for the year. Peal; employ- 
ment is several thousand in e::cess of the average, according to unoffi- 
cial estimates of the Census Bureau. On the basis of the foregoing, 
the peak employment is estimated at 20,000, one half of whom, according 
to the Census officials, may be taken as employed in citrus packing. 

Cotton Ginning 

Estimate based on reports compiled by the Cotton and Oils Division 
of the Bureau of the Census. These reports show some 15,000 ginneries; 
estimates mace by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and by Research 
and Planning indicate that on the average each establishment has approxi- 
mately si:; employees. 

(*) Census of American Business, 1533, Wholesale Distribution, 

Vol. I, -o.A-17. 
(**) Ibid, p. 31 


Cotton Compressing and Warehousing • ■ 

The Cotton and Oils Division reports show 400 compressors in opera- 
tion in 1933. The average number of persons employed by each is unoffi- 
cially estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to he about 50. 
In addition, approximately 2,000 public storage warehouses, not connected 
with compressers, operated in 1933. A rough estimate made by the Assist- 
ant Deputy Administrator is to the effect that the average number of em- 
ployees of warehousing establishments separate from compresses would be 
about 10. 

Cotton Seed Crashi ng 

A Research and Planning survey shows approximately 500 mills in op- 
eration in 1934. The average number of employees of each is 40. 

Cigar Leaf Dealers 

Estimate made by Deputy Administrator's office on basis of data col- 
lected in field survey. 

Tobacco Leaf Dealer s 

Estimate made by Deputy Administrator 1 s office on basis of data col- 
lected in field survey. 

Florists (Growers ) 

Estimate of industry representatives. 
Pacific Coast Dried Fruit Drying 

Estimate of industry representatives. 

Naval Storas - Raw Gu m 

No figures are available which bear directly on the number of em- 
ployees in this industry. According to the AAA the Raw Gum branch employs 
approximately seven times as many as the wood distillation branch. The 
latter employ somewhat less than 2,000 workers, according to an estimate 
made by the Industry for the Deputy Administrator handling the Chemical 

Table II 

Wholesale ?resh fruit and Vegetable 

The figure, 45,000, represents an estimate for employees at peak per- 
iod. The 1953 census of wholesale distribution reports 55,000 average 
for the entire industry; excluding 17,500 (average) engaged in pack- 
ing operations, (See note above on Citrus Packing) gives some 



37.500 workers in the industry e::cept packing employees. The industry 

being highly seasonal, the figure of 4^,000 represents a conservative 

estimate for the masiaun number of workers. In 1923 the Census reported 
S2.SO0 forke::s employee.. 

Auction and Loose Lep.f Tobacco Warehousing 

Census of Distri bution figure for 1333 "ith estimated correction 
to shov maximum iTJ-.foer e:r:loyed during the very short peal: season. 

"aval Stores - *,7ood Distillation 

Estimate nade by the industry* 





io investigate labor cchditiohs u tic Florida citrus 


To:' The Honorable, the Secretary of Agri culture, 
The Honorable, the Secretary of fyabor, 
The Honorable, the Administrator of the national Recovers 1- 

Adjoin i st ration , 
The Honorable, the Chairman of the National Labor Board. 

Several strikes of the citrus workers in the Lake TJalcs area, 
which is in the heart of the Florida Citrus Belt, led to the appoint- 
ment of the undersigned committee, composed of Isador Lubin, represent- 
ing the ' Department of Labor, Francis II. Shea, the Department of Agricul- 
ture, William J. Uoolston, the national RecOTary Administration, and 
Harvey Cox, the national Labor Board, The comraifetee was delegated (1) 
To investigate the sources of these labor problems, (2), To submit its 
opinion as to whether a Code of Fair Competition under the National 
Industrial Recovery Act might properly and effectively be used as an 
aid in their solution, (3) To . make such other recommendations as its 
analysis of the situation might suggest. 

Report of Conditions 

At a minimum there are 5 n ,C r, '0 persons erxoloyed in the citrus 
industry. Conditions of employment often involve many specific abuses. 
The income of these workers uoon the best available dat-. averages no 
'.i;her than $7.HC -oer week over the year. There is no supplementary 
employment which can be looked to for a regular increase of this income. 
Except in isolated instances there is no chance of adding to the sources 
of support 'oy snail gardening which is a. usual factor to be considered 
in determining the economic conditions of farm labor. In general, these 
workers live in to vT ns. They have rent to nay which ranges from $5.00 
t"o $12.00 a month; Their food and clothing must be purchased in the 
town stores. Few are able to' remain out of debt even when restricting 
themselves to the most meager living. The protestations of the nackers 
are that if their business is made secure and profitable by Government 
intervention, labor will be well enough off. But. .past performance is 
not convincing that benefits will ue fairl' r shared with the workers. 

The citrus workers 1 union is an extensive and growing organiza- 
tion . Through the bargaining power -'hich it may afford, it is possible 
that labor will be able to enact more favorable dealing. But every 
means is being e:;ercised to break down this organization by the employers. 
(1) The usual forms of terrorism have been employed, t' audi not as 
extensively as in many disputes of this character. (2) The fears of 
the workers for loss of their emplpynent have been engaged against 
unionization by threat.s that persons joinin : the union will be dis- 
charged, Which have been made graphic b " actual -oerformance of the 



threats. (3) Establishment of countervailing company unions. (4) Keep- 
ing union members away from meetings by requiring them to work on 
me et ings night s , et c. 

The citrus workers' union i.s! truly representative of the workers 
in the industry. It extends throughout the heart of the citrus "belt 
and is fast pushing it ! ^ organization into every area in which citrus is 
grown. There are, according to the union rolls, B.618 members. This ,is 
not an entirely paid up membership as -persons are continued on the 
rolls, thoiigh they have lapsed in payment of. dues, where they are out 
of employment or otherwise unable to meet such obligation. However, 
attendance at union meetings indicates that this is not an exaggeration 
of the strength of the union and the united front which has been pre- 
sented in several strikes in the area confirms it. The union includes 
in its membership both men and women, negroes and white workers. Its 
membership extends to grove workers, dickers - ,, packing house employees, 
canning factory workers and all other types of those employed in the 
citrus industry. 

It was represented by the packers that the union represented merely 
the agitation of a few persons in a localized area, but our investiga- 
tion entirely disproves this contention. 



On the initial premises of this Administration that no class is 
to be ignored, that suffering and exploitation is a signal for directed 
effort on the part of the Government to alleviate the evils, that the 
benefits conferred by Govenrment action are not to be bestowed at the 
top with the hope that they will seep through but are to be carried down 
''o-/ Government direction to all classes, Government intervention in the 
interest of the citrus workers is called for. 

The citrus industry will not respond to a common ideology which 

sharply segregates farm and industrial labor. The citrus workers may 

be roughly divided into three classifications; (l)' grove workers, (2) 
pickers, (3) packing employees. 

If one were to adopt any common conceptions of farm labor and 
industrial labor, the grove workers world probably fall in the former 
category while wickers .aid packing house employees would be deemed 
industrial workers. . 

Grove labor is employed to plow, hoe, and fertilize, to prune and 
spray the trees, etc. This is traditional farm work, but in certain 
marked respects thise employed at it are not of the traditional type 
of farm labor. By. and large, they not ; >:iven their subsistence. 
They live in towns and' are transported to the groves to do their "ork. 
They are part of a labor market -hich is dealt with by employers and 
responds much as any industrial labor market. 



The packing house e;piployees are distinctly industrial .labor. They are 
used iij cleaning;, grading and packing the fruit. They are factory 
workers, skilled and unskilled, carrying on routinised operations. They 
are the adjuncts of belt conveyors, mechanical graders acid other typic- 
ally industrial machinery. 

The pickers are in rather an intermediate position. Their work 
consists of slitting fruit from the trees and cutting it in boxes for 
shipment to the packing houses. These workers are employees of the 
packing houses. They report at the factories and are transported to 
the groves. They arc "brought into a particular grove only for the 
single operation and paid at piece rates and 1 moved from grove to grove 
at the direction of their empl6yers. They live in towns and are hired 
from an ordinary, labor market. This type of labor would seem to be 
more characteristically industrial than agricultural. 

The definition o'f this labor as farm and industrial labor, accord- 
ing to common conceptions, is relevant only as such common conceptions 
coincide with possible distinctions made "jy the National Industrial 
He co very Act. The. legislative history of that Act contains some indica- 
tions that farm labor was not intended to be brought within its labor 
provisions, though it i s not conclusive on the point and a strong 
arugment to the. contrary may be made from the terms of the Act itself. 
However, even if farm labor is excluded from sharing in the benefits 
of the National Industrial Recovery Act's provisions farm labor as 
opposed to industrial labor is given no clear definition in this leg- 
islative history of that Act. There is some aid to be found in it as 
to where the line should be drawn but ultimately the above determina- 
tions, based on common conceptions,;. would perhaps be sustained as the 
most reasonable segregation of the types of labor in the citrus industry 
between farm and industrial workers. It should be noted that an 
administrative interpretation of the term "agricultural worker" was made 
Ir- Release Ho. 2731, on January 17, 1934, purporting to be an official 
definition agreed upon ~oy the national Recovery Administration and the 
Agricultural Adjustment Administration. This definition has not been 
uniformly followed and is not entirely free from ambiguity, but in any 
event the question of whether labor is industrial or farm labor for the 
purpose of determining whether a code of fair competition under'. the 
National Industrial Recover Act may b.e made applicable thereto is a 
question of law upon which administrative interpretations cannot be : '. 
finally determinative. 

A code of f-air competition under the National Industrial Recovery 
Act might bo imposed upon the citrus industry and its labor provision 
extended to pickers and packing house employees. Such a code might have 
value in assisting labor in collective bargaining by exacting recogni- 
tion of its representatives and its right to organize under Section 7 
(a), but it is probably not the adequate solution. ITages arc unusually 
low in the industry, but labor is suffering primarily" from the irregu- 
larity of employment. A minimum daily wage which might be sot by a code 
of fair competition would not materially increase the income of citrus 
labor. It might not even require a raising of present rates. The workers 
would still bo employed in the sporadic fashion in which they now are 
and their total income probably limited to the present meager amounts. 



Tiie problem of regularizing employment must be attacked if an answer 
approaching adequacy is to be given this problem. Use of cedes of fair 
competition for this purpose would require provisions fixing a minimum 
period of employment' or a minimum income for the season. In the way 
of stich a use of coded are possible constitutional difficulties and the 
unprecendented character of such provisions. 

A condition of any ultimately successful move to deal with labor 
conditions must be the regularizing of the citrus market. If that can 
be attained, the possibility exists of regularizing the use of citrus 
labor. For a period of eight months during the year there is, fruit 
in the groves ready for picking. It does not spcil quickly after 
reaching ripened condition. There is a period of from one to t" r o months 
grace in gathering in the crop after it has matured. There is like- 
wise some latitude (at least a week's time if the fruit is not artific- 
ial!^ colored) in packing after the harvest. If the fruit can be stead- 
ily moved out to market during the eight month's season, .picking and 
packing might be carried on steadily durin the period. A further 
condition of adequately increasing the income of citrus labor must be 
a raising of the general income from citrus fruit. Returns to growers 
have fallen sharply, and as grove labor is dependent upon sharing in returns, substantial increases of the income of such labor 
cannot be secured if these returns are ruinously low. 

The problems of establishing stable marketing conditions and in- 
creasing the income from citrus products are problems entrusted to 
the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. If it be accepted as a 
promise that the income of citrus workers is inextricably bound up 
with these two problems, the solution of the one is dependent upon the 
solution of the other, and a high degree of correlstion should be sought 
in the efforts directed to the solution of the problems of marketing 
and increasing th, income from citrus fruit on the one hand and the 
problem of bettering the conditions and increasing the wages of citrus 
labor on the other. 

It would therefore seem desirable that an agency entrusted with 
the problems of citrus labor be set up in such a way as to permit 
close cooperation with the existing agency entrusted with the problems 
of Agriculture generally. This conclusion suggests. that the desirable 
procedure would be to set up a unit in the Department of Agriculture 
empowered to deal v 'ith the problems of labor in agricultural pursuits 
such as citrus and correlated to the activities of the existing 
Agricultural Adjustment Administration. 

It is recognized that any program of this character is experi- 
mental, and as trial of it is made ne ,_ ' suggestions of procedure will 
undoubtedly develop* 





Executive Order No. 7075, dated June 15, 1935, established the Division of Review of the 
National Recovery Administration. The pertinent part of the Executive Order reads thus: 

The Division of Review shall assemble, analyze, and report upon the statistical 
information and records of experience of the operations of the various trades and 
industries heretofore subject to codes of fair competition, shall study the ef- 
fects of such codes upon trade, industrial and labor conditions in general, and 
other related matters, shall make available for the protection and promotion of 
the public interest an adequate review of the effects of the Administration of 
Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the principles and policies 
put into effect thereunder, and shall otherwise aid the President in carrying out 
his functions under the said Title. I hereby appoint Leon C. Marshall, Director of 
the Division of Review. 

The study sections set up in the Division of Review covered these areas: industry 
studies, foreign trade studies, labor studies, trade practice studies, statistical studies, 
legal studies, administration studies, miscellaneous studies, and the writing of code his- 
tories. The materials which were produced by these sections are indicated below. 

Except for the Code Histories, all items mentioned below are scheduled to be in mimeo- 
graphed form by April 1, 1936. 


The Code Histories are documented accounts of the formation and administration of the 
codes. They contain the definition of the industry and the principal products thereof; the 
classes of members in the industry; tho history of code formation including an account of the 
sponsoring organizations, the conferences, negotiations and hearings which were held, and 
the activities in connection with obtaining approval of the code; the history of the ad- 
ministration of the code, covering the organization and operation of the code authority, 
the difficulties encountered in administration, the extent of compliance or non-compliance, 
and the general success or lack of success of the code; and an analysis of the operation of 
code provisions dealing with wages, hours, trade practices, and other provisions. These 
and other matters are canvassed not only in terms of the materials to be found in the files, 
but also in terms of the experiences of the deputies and others concerned with code formation 
and administration. 

The Code Histories, (including histories of certain NRA units or agencies) are not 
mimeographed. They are to be turned over to the Department of Commerce in typewritten form. 
All told, approximately eight hundred and fifty (850) histories will be completed. This 
number includes all of the approved codes and some of the unapproved codes. (In Work Mate- 
rials No^ 1§, Con tents of Code His to ries , will be found the outline which governed the 
preparation of Code Histories.) 

(In the case of all approved codes and also in the case of some codes not carried to 
final approval, there are in NRA files further materials on industries. Particularly worth,, 
of mention are the Volumes I, II and III which constitute the material officially submitted 
to the President in support of the recommendation for approval of each code. These volumes 

set forth the origination of the codes, the sponsoring group, the evidence advanced to sup- 
port the proposal, the report of the Division of Research and Planning on the industry, the 
recommendations of the various Advisory Boards, certain types of official correspondence, 
the transcript of the formal hearing, and other pertinent matter. There is also much offi- 
cial information relating to amendments, interpretations, exemptions, and other rulings. The 
materials mentioned in this paragraph were of course not a part of the work of the Division 
of Review. ) 


In the work of the Division of Review a considerable number of studies and compilations 
of '.ata (other than those noted below in the Evidence Studies Series and the Statistical 
Material Series) have been made. These are listed below, grouped according to the char- 
acter of the material. (In Work Ma terials No . 17 . Te ntativ e Outli nes and Sum maries of 
Studies in P rocess , the materials are fully described) . 

I ndustry Studies 

Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of 

Bituminous Coal Industry under Free Competition and Code Regulation, Ecnomic Survey of 

Electrical Manufacturing Industry, The 

Fertilizer Industry, The 

Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes 

Fishermen and Fishing Craft, Earnings of 

Foreign Trade under the National Industrial Recovery Act 

Part A - Competitive Position of the United States in International Trade 1927-29 through 

Part B - Section 3 (e) of NIRA and its administration. 
Part C - Imports and Importing under NRA Codes. 
Part D - Exports and Exporting under NRA Codes. 

Forest Products Industries, Foreign Trade Study of the 

Iron and Steel Industry, The 

Knitting Industries, The 

Leather and Shoe Industries, The 

Lumber and Timber Products Industry, Economic Problems of the 

Men's Clothing Industry, The 

Millinery Industry, The 

Motion Picture Industry, The 

Migration of Industry, The: The Shift of Twenty-Five Needle Trades From New York State, 
1926 to 1934 

National Labor Income by Months, 1929-35 

Paper Industry, The 

Production, Prices, Employment and Payrolls in Industry, Agriculture and Railway Trans- 
portation, January 1923, to date 

Retail Trades Study, The 

Rubber Industry Study, The 

Textile Industry in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan 

Textile Yarns and Fabrics 

Tobacco Industry, The 

Wholesale Trades Study, The 

Women's Neckwear and Scarf Industry, Financial and Labor Data on 


- iii - 

Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the 

T rade P ractic e Studies 

Commodities, Information Concerning: A Study of NRA and Related Experiences in Control 

Distribution, Manufacturers' Control of: Trade Practice Provisions in Selected NRA Codes 

Distributive Relations in the Asbestos Industry 

Design Piracy: The Problem and Its Treatment Under NRA Codes 

Electrical Mfg. Industry: Price Filing Study 

Fertilizer Industry: Price Filing Study 

Geographical Price Relations Under Codes of Fair Competition, Control of 

Minimum Price Regulation Under Codes of Fair Competition 

Multiple Basing Point System in the Lime Industry: Operation of the 

Price Control in the Coffee Industry 

Price Filing Under NRA Codes 

Production Control in the Ice Industry 

Production Control, Case Studies in 

Resale Price Maintenance Legislation in the United States 

Retail Price Cutting, Restriction of, with special Emphasis on The Drug Industry. 

Trade Practice Rules of The Federal Trade Commission (1914-1936): A classification for 

comparision with Trade Practice Provisions of NRA Codes. 

Labor Studies 

Cap and Cloth Hat Industry, Commission Report on Wage Differentials in 

Earnings in Selected Manufacturing Industries, by States, 1933-35 

Employment, Payrolls, Hours, and Wages in 115 Selected Code Industries 1933-35 

Fur Manufacturing, Commission Report on Wages and Hours in 

Hours and Wages in American Industry 

Labor Program Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, The 

Part A. Introduction 

Part B. Control of Hours and Reemployment 

Part C. Control of Wages 

Part D. Control of Other Conditions of Employment 

Part E. Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act 
Materials in the Field of Industrial Relations 
PRA Census of Employment, June, October, 1933 
Puerto Rico Needlework, Homeworkers Survey 

Administrativ e Studies 

Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and Exceptions, Code Amendments, Con- 
ditional Orders of Approval 

Administrative Interpretations of NRA Codes 

Administrative Law and Procedure under the NIRA 

Agreements Under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) of the NIRA 

Approved Codes in Industry Groups, Classification of 

Basic Code, the — (Administrative Order X-61) 

Code Authorities and Their part in the Administration of the NIRA 
Part A. Introduction 
Part B. Nature, Composition and Organization of Code Authorities 


- IV - 

Part C. Activities of the Code Authorities 

Part D. Code Authority Finances 

Part E. Summary and Evaluation 
Code Compliance Activities of the NRA 
Code Making Program of the NRA in the Territories, The 
Code Provisions and Related Subjects, Policy Statements Concerning 
Content of NIRA Administrative Legislation 

Part A. Executive and Administrative Orders 

Part B. Labor Provisions in the Codes 

Part C. Trade Practice Provisions in the Codes 

Part D. Administrative Provisions in the Codes 

Part E. Agreements under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) 

Part F. A Type Case: The Cotton Textile Code 
Labels Under NRA, A Study of 

Model Code and Model Provisions for Codes, Development of 

National Recovery Administration, The: A Review of its Organization and Activities 
NRA Insignia 

President's Reemployment Agreement, The 

President's Reemployment Agreement, Substitutions in Connection with the 
Prison Labor Problem under NRA and the Prison Compact, The 
Problems of Administration in the Overlapping of Code Definitions of Industries and Trades. 

Multiple Code Coverage, Classifying Individual Members of Industries and Trades 
Relationship of NRA to Government Contracts and Contracts Involving the Use of Government 

Relationship of NRA with States and Municipalities 
Sheltered Workshops Under NRA 
Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Program 

Legal Studies 

Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition 

Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees to Enforce 

Commerce Clause, Federal Regulation of the Employer-Employee Relationship Under the 

Delegation of Power, Certain Phases of the Principle of, with Reference to Federal Industrial 
Regulatory Legislation 

Enforcement, Extra-Judicial Methods of 

federal Regulation through the Joint Employment of the Power of Taxation and the Spending 

Government Contract Provisions as a Means of Establishing Proper Economic Standards, Legal 
Memorandum on Possibility of 

Industrial Relations in Australia, Regulation of 

Intrastate Activities Which so Affect Interstate Commerce as to Bring them Under the Com- 
merce Clause, Cases on 

Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions 

Post Office and Post Road Power — Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Industrial Regula- 

State Recovery Legislation in Aid of Federal Recovery Legislation History and Analysis 

Tariff Rates to Secure Proper Standards of Wages and Hours, the Possibility of Variation in 

Trade Practices and the Anti-Trust Laws 

Treaty Making Power of the United States 

War Power, Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Regulation of Child Labor? 


- V - 


The Evidence Studies were originally undertaken to gather material for pending court 
cases. After the Schechter decision the project was continued in order to assemble data for 
use in connection with the studies of the Division of Review. The data are particularly 
concerned with the nature, size and operations of the industry; and with the relation of the 
industry to interstate commerce. The industries covered by the Evidence Studies account for 
more than one-half of the total number of workers under codes. The list of those studies 

Automobile Manufacturing Industry 
Automotive Parts and Equipment Industry 
Baking Industry 

Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Industry 
Bottled Soft Drink Industry 
Builders' Supplies Industry 
Canning Industry 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry 
Cigar Manufacturing Industry 
Coat and Suit Industry 
Construction Industry 
Cotton Garment Industry 
Dress Manufacturing Industry 
Electrical Contracting Industry 
Electrical Manufacturing Industry 
Fabricated Metal Products Mfg. and Metal Fin- 
ishing and Metal Coating Industry 
Fishery Industry 
Furniture Manufacturing Industry 
General Contractors Industry 
Graphic Arts Industry 
Gray Iron Foundry Industry 
Hosiery Industry 

Infant's and Children's Wear Industry 
Iron and Steel Industry 

Leather Industry 

Lumber and Timber Products Industry 
Mason Contractors Industry 
Men's Clothing Industry 
Motion Picture Industry 
Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade 
Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico 
Painting and Paperhanging Industry 
Photo Engraving Industry 
Plumbing Contracting Industry 
Retail Lumber Industry 
Retail Trade Industry 
Retail Tire and Battery Trade Industry 
Rubber Manufacturing Industry 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry 
Shipbuilding Industry 
Silk Textile Industry 
Structural Clay Products Industry 
Throwing Industry 
Trucking Industry 
Waste Materials Industry 
Wholesale and Retail Food Industry 
Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Indus- 
Wool Textile Industry 


This series is supplementary to the Evidence Studies Series. The reports include data 
on establishments, firms, employment, payrolls, wages, hours, production capacities, ship- 
ments, sales, consumption, stocks, prices, material costs, failures, exports and imports. 
They also include notes on the principal qualifications that should be observed in using the 
data, the technical methods employed, and the applicability of the material to the study of 
the industries concerned. The following numbers appear in the series: 

- vi - 

Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry Fertilizer Industry 

Business Furniture Funeral Suprly Industry 

Candy Manufacturing Industry Glass CDntainer Industry 

Carpet and Rug Industry Ice Manufacturing Industry 

Cement Industry Knitted Outerwear Industry 

Cleaning and Dyeing Trade Paint, Varnish, ana Lacquer, Mfg. Industry 

Coffee Industry Plumbing Fixtures Industry 

Copper and Brass Mill Products Industry Rayon and Synthetic Yarn Producing Industry 

Cotton Textile Industry Salt Producing Industry 

Electrical Manufacturing Industry 


The original, and approved, plan of the Division of Review contemplated resources suf- 
ficient (a) to prepare some 1200 histories of codes and NRA units or agencies, (b) to con- 
solidate and index the NRA files containing some 40,000,000 pieces, (c) to engage in ex- 
tensive field work, (d) to secure much aid from established statistical agencies of govern- 
ment, (e) to assemble a considerable number of experts in various fields, (f) to conduct 
approximately 25% more studies than are listed above, and (g) to prepare a comprehensive 
summary report. 

Because of reductions made in personnel and in use of outside experts, limitation of 
access to field work and research agencies, and lack of jurisdiction over files, the pro- 
jected plan was necessarily curtailed. The most serious curtailments were the omission of 
the comprehensive summary report; the dropping of certain studies and the reduction in the 
coverage of other studies; and the abandonment of the consolidation and indexing of the 
files. Fortunately, there is reason to hope that the files may yet be caret" for under other 

Notwithstanding these limitations, if the files are ultimately consolidated and in- 
dexed the exploration of the NRA materials will have been sufficient to make them accessible 
and highly useful. They constitute the largest and richest single body of information 
concerning the problems and operations of industry ever assembled in any nation. 

L. C. Marshall, 
Director, Division of Review. 
9768— S .