•^alltf9 2
06317
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
'/
PART A: INTRODUCTION
FOREWORD LISTING THE LABOR STUDIES AND PARTICULARLY
THOSE IN WORK MATERIALS NO. 45
LIMITS OF COVERAGE OF LABOR IN INDUSTRIES CLOSELY
ALLIED TO AGRICULTURE UNDER CODES OF FAIR COMPETI-
TION UNDER NIRA
WORK MATERIALS NO. 45
THE LABOr PROGRAM UNDER THE NIRA
Work Materials No. 45 falls into the following parts:
Part A
Part B
Part C
Part D
Part E
Introduction
Control of Hours and Reemployment
Control of Wages
Control of Other Conditions of Employment
Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act
LABOR STUDIES SECTION
MARCH, 1936
OFPICE OF ITATI011AL RECOVERY AD1H1TI STRATI OH
DIVISIOIT OP REVIET7
FOREWORD LISTI17G THE LABOR STUDIES Ala) PARTICULARLY THOSE III
WORK ljaterials 110. 45
LABOR STUDIES SECTI01T
I ARCH, 1936
9850
F03EW0RD
This foreword introduces all of the sections of Tork Materials No.
45, The Labor Program Under the NIRA.
o
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
connection:
Tork Materials
•3 Financial and Labor rata. on the "omen's Neclcvear and Scarf
Industry
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
Industries
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 Afcreemeat
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
THE LABOR PROGRAM UNDER THE NIBA
C 0 IT TEHTS
PART A. INTRODUCTION
1. Limits of Coverage of Labor in Industries Closely Allied
to Agriculture Under Codes of Pair Competition under NIRA
PART.B. CONTROL OF EOI.TRS AND REEMPLOYMENT
1. NRA Policies, Standards and Code Provisions on the Basic
Weekly Hours of Work
2. Employment and Unemployment — 1929-1935
PART C. CONTROL 0? WAGES
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
PART D. CONTROL OF OTHER CONDITIONS OF Ei PLOYIXT
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
PART E. SECTION 7(a) OF THE RECOVERY ACT
1. Section 7(a); Its History, Interpretation and Administration
2. Partnership Towrrd Recovery, Section 7(a) as a Method
9850 -ii-
OFFICE CF EA.TIOHAL RECOVERY AD! ilNI STRATI Oil
DlVISIOr OF REVIEW
LIMITS OF COVERAGE OF LA3CR IF INDUSTRIES CLOSELY ALLIED
TO AGRICULTURE Ul'DER CODES OF FAIR COMPETITION H7DER FIRA
By
Roorrt M. Woodbury
LABOR STUDIES SECTIOI
i -larch, 1936
9650
-111-
CONTENTS
Page
I . INTRODUCTION 2
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
II . AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 3
III . AGRICULTURAL LABOR UNDER THE PRA 4
IV. BORDERLINE INDUSTRIES 6
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
V. DETERMINATION 0? THE LIMITS OF NRA JURISDICTION OVER
LABOR 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
VI . RESULTS AND CONCLUSION 28
A. Effects Upon Codification and Compliance 28
B. Estimated Effects Upon Workers 28
C. Conclusion 29
APPENDIX A - TABLES
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
APPENDIX B
"Report of the Interdepartmental Committee Appointed to
Investigate Labor Conditions in the Florida Citrus Industry. "35
-IV-
9850
Agri cu1 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 ca.ses
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 ca.ses 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.
9850
I. INTRODUCTION
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 1TIRA, 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
cm.
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.
9850
-3-
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 1TI3A 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
concerned.
II. AGRICULTURE ALT) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
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 letoal 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
provisions.
9850
_4-
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.
III. AGE I CULTURAL LABOR UEDER THE PRA.
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.
850
-5-
This was made clear in Interpretation Fo. 6, issued in Bulletin
#4 which states:
"The 'following, groups ei.pl 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 .
■ • . -: | -■
9350
IV. B03DERLIITZ INDUSTRIES
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-njct 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 ovjr policis arising b-itween the NRA and th1 AAA, the
pow.rs and functions of th£ Pr5sid 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^sj 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, Junj 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" Pay» and 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."
9850
-7-
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 xcludinfe 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 betwejn th-. S cretary
■ of Agriculture and thJ National Recovery Administrator..."
9850
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 thj 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 jports 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 excaptin& 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)
9850
-9-
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 purcha.se of
agricultural commodities from producers and the subsequent
sale or disposition by first processors of the first -processed
articles.
(3) Credits and financial charges with reference to
agricultural products.
(4) Commission rates in connection with the purcha.se
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)
9850
-10-
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
of—
(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)
9850
-II-
formalation and determination of labor provisions went forward. The
Secretary of Agriculture had no further jurisdiction over them or their
labor.
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. "
9850
1(5
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
industries.
Industry
Code,
Beans - (Dried) Shippers
Broom manufacturing
Canners
Feed - Retail
Florists
Hides and Skins Dealers
Peanuts - Millers
Pecan Distributors
Pecan Shellers
Pickle Packing
Pop Corn Manufacturing
Potato Chip Manufacturing
Preserves
Rendering
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.
9850
-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
Cheese
Cotton Exchange — Fe\ York
Cotton ^-change - Few Orleans
Cotton Traders
Cottonseed Crushing
Cottonseed Oil Refining
Egg and Poultry
Feed, Efey and Straw Distri-
butors
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 ■ •■
Industry
Malsters
Oleoma rg: rine
Poultr~T Breeders
Pace
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, F.ice
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
elevators)
Linseed Oil LP-11
i 1 u. Industry LP-22
Commercial Breeder
Hatcher"- LP-S
Southern F.ice Filling LF-5
Beet SU( ;ar LP-1
Cigar [anufacturing * ;.l4S7
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.
9850
-14-
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
industry.
Footnotes (**) and (***) continued.
Butter
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
Brewing
Distilled Spirits
Rectifying
Alcoholic Beverage
TJholesaling
Alcoholic Beverage
Importing
Line Industry
LP-9
LP-10
LP -13
LP-15
LP-20
LP-21
The administration of these codes uas transferred to the Federal
Alcohol Control Administration.
9850
-15-
L . Unions in borderline Incest 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.
V. DETEraaMTIOr'OF T7I II. ITS OF i-BA JUhlS.ICTK h 0"~" LABOB 12. BOBLEh-
I.TM HffiUSTHIES.
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.
9850
-16-
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
oage.
9850
-17-
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.
9850
-18-
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 cla.ss 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.
9350
-19-
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
Texas.
(*) 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.
9850
-20-
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."
9850
-21-
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, received1 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 was 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.
9850
-23-
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 to.be 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.
9850
■ 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.
9850
-25b
B. DEFINITION OF IIIDUSTRISS IK CODES'
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 Vegetable 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.
9850
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
completely.
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.
C SUMMARY; • AREAS AND TYPES OF CONFLICT
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.
9850
-27-
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.
9850
-28-
VI. RESULTS ANT) CONCLUSION.
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
Yakima.
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
9850
23-
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.
• ■
9850
-30-
APPENDIX A
TABLE I
UNCODIFIED INDUSTRIES INVOLVING DELIMITATION OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
Industry-
Primary
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
(1)
C
Cotton Seed Crushing
(AAA-NRA)
20,000
c
Cigar Leaf Dealers
(AAA- NBA)
40
000 - 50,000
(4
B
Tobacco Leaf Dealers
(AAA-NRA)
35,000
D
Florists
35,000
AB
'Workers claimed
to "be agricultural
by Industry or
AAA.
Yes
Yes
Yes
- (2)
(3)
Yes
(5)
Pacific Coast Dried
Fruit Drying
Naval Stores
Branch
Raw Gum
15,000
13,000
B
Yes
Yes
Yes
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
raised.
9850
-31-
TABLE II
CODIFIED INDUSTRIES INVOLVING DELIMITATION
OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT I OK OR AGRICULTURAL
WORKERS.
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.
9850
-32-
N0T1S TO TABLE I AMD II
SOURCES Or IlIKI3.iA.TIOK 2EGA2DIMG
NDiBEa OP EMPLOYEES LISTED III
TABLES I AKD II
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 hou.se 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
S85O
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 Crashing
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 Dealers
Estimate made by Deputy Administrator1 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 Gum
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
Code.
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
9850
-34-
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*
9S50
-35-
apphtdix
"REPORT OF TIT DTTZTDEPARTLEFTAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED
io investigate labor cchditiohs u tic Florida citrus
LTDUSTRY
To:' The Honorable, the Secretary of Agri culture,
The Honorable, the Secretary of fyabor,
The Honorable, the Administrator of the national Recovers1-
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.
1.
Report of Conditions
At a minimum there are 5n,Cr,'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 tovTns. 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 workers1 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
S:850
.-36-
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.
II.
Recommendations
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 hor.se 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 r.re 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.
9850
-37-
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 and1 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.
9850
-38-
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"ro 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
the.ee 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*
;350#
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
THE DIVISION OF REVIEW
THE WORK OF THE DIVISION OF REVIEW
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
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§, Contents of Code Histories, 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
9768—1,
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. )
THE WORK MATERIALS SERIES
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 Materials No. 17. Tentative Outlines and Summaries of
Studies in Process, the materials are fully described) .
Industry 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
1934.
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
9768—2
- iii -
Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the
Trade Practice 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
Administrative 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
9768—3.
- 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
Funds
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
Power
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-
tion?
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?
9768—4.
- V -
THE EVIDENCE STUDIES SERIES
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
follows:
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-
try
Wool Textile Industry
THE STATISTICAL MATERIALS SERIES
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:
9768—5.
- 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 COVERAGE
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
auspices.
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 .
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11