rB£& ■
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
HISTORY OF GENERAL EXEMPTIONS
By
Lucius Q. C. Lamar
WORK MATERIALS NO. 75
CODE HISTORIES UNIT
MARCH, 1936
...... iX> "*i * *■ * s •-
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
HISTORY OF GENERAL EXEMPTIONS
By
Lucius Q,. C. Lamar
CODE HISTORIES UNIT
MARCH, 1936
9845
7^, J, Sh/LJU. <^M^^*^^^
FOREWORD
This history of General Exemptions was prepared by Mr.
Lucius Q,. C. Lamar, Exemption Grouo Supervisor of the Code
Histories Unit, Mr. Robert C. Ayers in charge.
The history, the operation, and the effects of the Executive
and Administrative Orders which created general exemptions have
been treated in this work. The term "General Exemptions" as
here used means those exemptions which were not limited in their
application to a particular code. Work Materials No. 74 on
"Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and
Exceptions, Code Amendments, Conditional Orders of Approval"
contains allied material.
The exhibits referred to in the text are not here reproduced.
They may be found in the NBA files under the title NRA Studies
Special Exhibits, Work Materials No. 75.
At the back of this report will be found a brief statement
of the studies undertaken by the Division of Review.
L. C. Marshall,
Director, Division of Review
March 25, 1936
9845 -i-
TA3LE_0E CONTENTS
Page
Summary 1
General Exemptions;
A. Exemption to members not participating in
establishing code.
Executive Order of July 15, 1933, No. 6205-B 3.
B. Co-oueratives.
Executive Order of October 23, 1933, Wo. 6355 9
C. Terns under 2500 nonulation.
Executive Order of October 23, 1933, No . 6354 13
D. Service Trades.
Executive Order of lasy 27, 1934, No. 6723 16
E. Exemptions as to Sales to Hospitals.
administrative Order of January 23, 1934,
Order No. X-4 pnd others 20
E. Handicaorjed Workers.
Executive Order of February 17, 1934,
No. 6606-P 25
G. Horaevror:-ers.
Executive Order of May 15, 1934, No. 6711-A 29
H. Aup rent ices.
Executive Order of June 27, 1934, No. 6750-C 33
I. Sheltered Workshops,
Administrative Order of March 3, 1934,
Order No. X~9 and others 42
J. Government Contracts
Executive Order of March 14, 1934, No. 6646 44
9845 ~ii_
Page
K. Exemption from Assessments,
Administrative Order of April 14, 1934,
No. X-20 and others 47
L. Territorial Possessions.
Administrative Order of July 2, 1934, No. X-60
and others 5-2
EXHIBITS
(These exhibits are not reproduced in mimeographed form. They
are on file in bound form in NRA Studies Special Exhibits,
Wo rk ivia te ria 1 s No . 75 )
1-A Memo from Malcolm Sharp re origin of Executive
Order 6 2" 5- 3
1-B Memo from 3. Lotwin re origin of Executive
Order 6205-3
2 Executive Order 6205-B - Granting exemptions
to non-participating members
3 Memo from L. J. Bernard re Interpretation of
Executive Order 6205-B
4 Memo from L. J. 3ernard re Interpretation of
Executive Order 6205-B
4-a Reports cf Exemptions under Executive Order
6205-B from Construction Unit, Industry
Section No. I
4-B Reports of Exemptions under Executive Order
6205-B in industries other than Construction
Unit from Industry Section I
4-C Reports cf Exemptions under Executive Order
6205-B from Industry Section II
4-D Report of Exemptions under Executive Order
6205-B from Industry Section IV
4-E Reports of Exemptions under Executive Order
6205-3 from Industry Section V
5 Executive Order 6355 - Exemptions to Cooperative
Organizations
6 Executive Order 6606-A - Supplement to and
Amplification of Executive Order 6355
7 Administrative Order X-35 - Definition of
Farmers' and Consumers' Cooperatives
8 Administrative Order 182-11 and 106-11 -
Interpretation of Administrative Order X-35
9845
■ in-
Exhibits (Continued)
9 Administrative Order X-98 - Interpreting Executive
Order 66Q6-A Insofar as it aoplies to allowance
of brokerage commissions to cooperatives
10 Bulletin No. 3 - The President's Heemployraent
Program
11 Executive Order 6354 - Exempting towns of less than
2500 population
12 Executive Order 6710 - Amendment of Executive Order
6754
13 Administrative Order X-72 - Supplementing Executive
Order 6710 and designating trades and industries
subject to exemptions
14 Executive Order 6723 - Exemptions to Service
Trades
15 Executive Order 6756-A - Authorizing local codes
from unqialified service trades
16 Administrative Order X-53 - Relating to service
trades, the subject of Executive Order 6723
17 Letter from Executive Committee of Cleaning and
Dyeing Trade to the President attempting to
withdraw assent tc code
18 Reply of Eugh S. Johnson, Administrator, tc letter
from Executive Committee (Exhibit 17)
19 Administrative Order X-4 - Granting exemptions to
Hospitals
20 Administrative Order X-5 - Extending effective
date of Administrative Order X-4
21 Administrative Order X-8 - Granting permanent stay
of Administrative Order X-4 in connection with
certain industries
22 Executive Order X-24 - Staying provisions of Admin-
istrative Order X-4 with respect to the
Signalling Apparatus Subdivision of the Electrical
Manufacturing Industry
23 Administrative Order X-39 - Modifying the Adminis-
trative Order X-4 and excepting therefrom certain
industries
24 Executive Order 6606-P - Granting exemptions to
Handicapped lor-ers
25 Instructions from U. S. Labor Department dated
November 8, 1934, relative to Handicapped
workers
26 Report from U. S. Labor Department dated December
9, 1935, covering Handicapped workers
9845
•IV-
Exhibits (Continued)
27 Post Code analysis, Serial No, 78, by Research
and Planning Division, of Cede Provisions re-
garding Handicapped Employees
28 Executive Order 6711-a - Exemption to Home-
workers
29 Report from U. S. Department of Labor dated
June 1, 1934, regarding Home Jerk
30 Report from U. S. Department of Labor dated
December 9, 1935, upon exemption to Home
Workers
31 Form of Apprentice Contract prepared by the Federal
Committee on Apprentice Training
32 Bulletin Ho. 1 of Federal Committee en Apprentice
Training
33 Excerpt from Report of July 25, 1935 of the Federal
Committee on Apprentice Training
33-A Report Entitled the Apprentice Training Program
Under the N.R.A. by the Federal Committee on
Apprentice Training
33-3 Post Code Analysis, Serial Ho. 74, of Provisions
regarding Learners and Apprentices
33-C Post Code Analysis, Serial Ho. 74-A, Supplementing
Analysis of Provisions regarding Learners
and Apprentices
33-D Executive Order Ho. 6750-C - Exemption to
Apprentices
33-E General Regulation Ho. 1 re Apprentice Training
by Secretary of Labor
33-F Bulletin No. 2 of the Federal Committee en
Apprentice Training
34 Administrative Order X-9 - Exemption to Sheltered
Workshops
35 Administrative Order X-28 - Appointing national
Sheltered Workshops Committee, etc.
36 Administrative Order X-">9 - Authorizing the
National Sheltered Workshop Committee to
Issue the H.R.A. Insignia
37 Administrative Order X-81 - Amending and Supple-
menting Administrative Order X-59
38 Executive Order 6646 - Requiring Certificate of
Compliance on Government Contracts
39 Administrative Order X-48 - Exemption in con-
nection with quotations made to Governmental
Agencies
40 Executive Order He. 6767 - Modification of
Executive Order 6646
9845
-v-
Exhibits (Continued)
41 Memorandum from Laurence A, Knapp, dated June 6,
1934, regarding assessments
42 Executive Order 3673 - Relating to Collection of
Expenses of Code Administration
43 Administrative Order X-30 - Regulations Governing
Collection of Expenses of Code administration
44 Administrative Order X-36 - Regulations Governing
Collection of Expenses of Code Administration
Administrative Order X-36-1 - Interpretation of
Paragraph III of Administrative Order
X-36
Administrative Order X-36-2 - Interpretation
of Execration in Paragraph III, of Adminis-
trative Order X-36
45 Administrative Order X-60 - Exemptions of Trades
and Industries in Ha-vaii and Puerto Rico,
etc.
46 Administrative Order X-80 - Approving Eorra of
Administrator's Territorial Cooperation
Agreement
47 Office Memorandum No. 356 - Authorizing the
Deputy Administrator for Alaska to decide
Applications for Exemptions
48 Office Memorandum Mo. 357 - prescribing pro-
cedure for Deputy Administrator in the Exercise
of the Authority given under 0. I'. Ho. 356.
9845
-VI-
_ 1 -
S'JMmA;
This is a brief history of leral exemptions from code
provisions. The terra ;l ;e:i fci a" as here used means
those exemptions net Unite in th ii application to a particu-
lar code but extend either to ail codified industries or a group
or class of industries. 3? r example, Zbcecutive Order 6205-3,
applies to any and all codes thereafter approved. Executive Or-
dor 6711-A, which grants an exemption tc permit home work, applies
only to those codes whic i prohibit home work.
Mainly, the purpose of this work lias been to plane in a
single volume the essential features of all the general exemptions
tc serve as a handbook or starting point for a more comprehensive
study of any yZ the particular exemptions. Therefore, an endeavor
has been made to develop briefly a clear idea of each of the gener-
al exemptions. This involved, first, the background or conditions
which made necessary the issuance of the particular order; second,
a summary of the order itself; and1 thir<? a general treatment of the
operations an. effect of the order.
The; sources of information '-ere obtained primarily from the
ariginai Executive and Administrative Orders and the supporting docu-
ments pertaining thereto. However, in manycases there was no supporting
documents or any documents en file showing the circumstances surround-
ing the issuance of the particular order. In such cases wherever
possible the writers of this history conferred with the 1JRA offi-
cials who bad person-ally handled the particular order or had some
personal experience relating to it and obtaining verbally such in-
formation as the official had or obtained leads to other documentary .
evidence.
In the same manner considerable material was obtained in- devel-
oping the various sub-topics, such as "Operation and Effect" and
"Administration of Order", these sub-topics being common. to many of
the main topics.
Specific instances of information acquired from sources other
than the official records are the following:
Executive-Order 6-305-3;- The background of this Order from
Malcolm Sharp (See Exhibit ITo. 1A) and 3. Lotwin (see Exhibit No.
13). Report including the number and disposition of exemptions
were operative under Executive Order from Robert IT. Campbell,
Deputy Director, Section I of the Division of Business Cooperation
covering codes in the Construction Industries (Exhibits :To. 4-A) .
Like report from ',':. P. Tilis, Director, Section I, of exemp-
tions under the Order in codes constituting the Easic Materials and
Forest Products Industries. (Exhibit 4-3)
Like report of sxtch exemptions from Industry, Section II, from
3345
- 2 -
codes classified as "Manufacturing" Industries. (Exhibits 4-C).
Like report from Industry' Section IV, from codes under the
classification "Food11 Trades and Industries. (Exhibit 4-D) .
Similar report from Industry Section V, of such exemptions
from codes in Graphic Arts Industries, Inland 'Jeter Carrier Trade,
Codes under the Service Trades Section, Puerto "lean and Hawaiian
Codes, Finance Cooes, Public Transpo'rtion, and Amusement Industries.
There are no reports from Industry- Section III vrMch includes
Textiles and Chemicals.
Co-operatives:- Personal contact r/ith. Vernon J; Clarice, former-
ly Senior Assistant Deputy, Public Agencies Division and also a
tenative history of Co-operatives by Mr. Clarice,
Terns under 2J00 "■"ovulation;- Personal contact with Al.-ison
James formerly Executive Assistant of the Distributive Trades Divi-
sion.
Service Trades;- Personal contact with Ko1 arc Z. Col an, Acting
Assistant Deputy for the Distributing Trades Division.
Sales to Hospitals and also Exempt j-.ns to Sheltered Workshop s;~
Dffie Lee Lloore, formerly Executive Assistant of the Public Agencies
Division, and Executive Secretary of the national Sheltered Workshop
Committee.
Handicapped '.Yorkers and Homoworkers:- Mrs. Clara a. Dyers,
Assistant Director, Division of Labor Standards, United States Depart-
ment of Labor and Chairman of Federal Committee on Apprentice Train-
ing. (See also report of Labor Department on Handicapped '.Yorkers,
Exhibit Ho. 06 and report on Eomeworkers, Exhibit lio. 30).
Apprentice Trsjnting:- H. 3. G-underson, Technical Secretary of
Federal Committee on Apprentice Training, and employees of the com-
mittee.
Government Contracts:- Tench T. Marye, Former Unit Chief, Inter-
pretation Unit, Review Division, who formerly handled the review of
exceptions from Executive Order SG46.
There were many exemptions that do not come within the scope of
this work and for useful information regarding exemptions in general
the reader is invited to "Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays,
Exemptions and Exceptions, Code Amendments, Conditional Orders of
Approval", ";ork Materials 74.
5845
A. 3X31.1? HOLTS TO rZ\GC.'C_.XUX-J=I.C,^Aj:;I "i- I'd 3STA3LISHHIG
C033
I. Origin of Or< r
II. The Order
III. Construction of the Order
(1) Amendments to codes may be stayed under
the Executive Order
(2) Participation
(3) Representation
(4) V/hether action is tha t of an exemption
or stay
IV. Operation and Effect
V. .Conclusion.
I . Ori,.,in of Order
The national Industrial Recovery Act was approved June 16, 1933.
The first code, that of the Cotton Textile Industry, was approved
by the President on July r, 1""" •'..;. (1) ^i3 Order of Approval contain-
ed the conditions that administrative consideration should be given
the application cf any person directly affected by the code who had
not in '-arson or by representative consented thereto and that any
such person should be given an opportunity for a hearing before
the Administrator or his representative,' prior to incurring any
liability under the code by an;/ of the means provided in the nation-
al Industrial Recovery Act (Sea condition (ll) of the Order of
Approval) .
The possibility of litigation involving the legality and con-
stitutionality of the code with respect to enforcement of its pro-
visions upon non-assonti:.. members was considered by the legal staff
and the question was raised whether such non-assenting members had
been given duo notice and opportunity for making objections to the
proposed code, es?eciElly as the penalty provisions of the national
Industrial Recovery Act wore considered to have been severe. This
condition of the Order providing for the opportunity for hearing
was accordingly inserted to meat such possible objections. There
was however criticism from some of the members of this industry
upon the ground that this condition was too broad as allowing more
immunity from liability to non-assenting members than was necess-
ary.
After the approval of this cade it was doomed necessary to have
a general order providing for notice and opportunity for hearing,
applicable to all codes. An order was accordingly drafted by the legal
(l) Printed Coda Volume I, ">a..;e 1.
9845
-.4
staff of 1134 with the view of obviating the principal objection
to the condition of the order approving the Cotton Textile Code. (.2)
On July 15, 1933, the President signed the order, which nvas desig-
nated as Executive Order ITo. 6205-3.
II. The Order
This Executive Order provided for hearings after the approval
of a code tc persons who had not either in person or by representative
participated in establishing or had not consented to such code, who
claimed that in particular instances the code was unjust to them and
applied for an exemption therefrom. Persons sc applying within ten
days after the effective date of the code were given an. opportunity
f:r a hearing and determination of the issued raised prior to incur-
ring any liability under the code. The Administrator might also,
if justice required, stay the application of the cods to all similar-
ly affected pending the determination of the issues raised.
The Order with formal parts omitted is as follows:
"Any code of fair competition- approved by me
shall be deemed in full force and effect mi the
effective date as stated in the code; but after the
approval of a code and as an incident to the immediate
enforcement thereof, hearings may be given by the
Administrator or his designated representative to per-
sons (hereby defined to include natural persons, partner-
ships, associations or corporations) who have not in per-
son or o- a representative participate;, in establishing
or consenting to a code, but who are directly affected
thereby, and who claim that applications of the code
in particular instances are unjust to them an;." who
apply for an exception to, or exemptirn from, or modifi-
cation of the code. Such persons s: epplying, within ten
days after the effective date of the code, shall be eiven
an opportunity for a hearing and determination of the
issues raised prior to incurring' any liability to en-
forcement of the code, and the Administrator shall, if
justice requires, stay the application of the code to
all similarly affected pending a determination by me
of the issues raised. "(3)
As will be observed from the Executive Ord^r, the mere filing
of the application within the ten day period had the effect of re-
lieving the applicant from the operation of the code until an
opportunity had be^-n given for a hoarin^. No preliminary showing
(?) See i/iemorandums from Lalcolm Sharo, formerly of the Legal hivisi.n,
and Eemice Lotvin of the Legal Division, Exhibits 1-a and 1-33
respectively.
(3) Copy of Executive Order 6205-3 Exhibit 2.
9845
upon the merits vas required. ThiS relief was limited, however,
only to those -.mo did not participate in establishing the code
or had not consented thereto.
III. Conrtrv.cti . n of the 0.*' • .-v
(l) Amendments to codes could be stayed
under the Executive Or i _r
It was held that since- an amended code "became pro tanto a new
code that the Executive Order was applicable to amendments; (4)
hence members of the ^articular industry who had not consented to
such amendment or participated in its adoption could file their
objections within the ten day period, in which event a stay of
the amendment became operative as to them.
VJho were the -persons "who lave net in person or by
representative -ia r t i cioated in establishing
or consenting to a code?"
(2) Fart i cipat ion
Under this Order a person who merely appeared at the public
hearing on the code but objected tc the code could not be said to
have "participated in the establishing of or consenting to a code",
unless his objection was sustained and the code amended according-
ly; (5) hence persons so appearing and objecting to a code were
eligible to file application within the ten day period.
(3) Re ,rosontatj-n
In order to have been eligible as a nonparticipant the appli-
cant must not have participated either in person or by a. representa-
tive at the hearing. Whether or hot a person was represented at
the hearing was ordinarily 5 quest! n of express authorization.
However, questions did arise as- to whether such representation ex-
isted even though no express authority was conferred; for example,
whether the persons appearing on- behalf of the trade association or
other sponsoring organization represented the individual members of
such organization to the extent that a member would be deemed to
have participated in t he establishment of the code. The Retail Jewel-
ry Code provided that the Code Authority might make recommendations
(4) Memorandum from L. J. Bernard, Legal Council for the Review
Division, to E. r.i. Jeffrey, dated September 27, 1934, in re
application for exemption of Glick V.'atch Company, Retail
Jewelry Trade (Order No. 142-24), marked Exhibit No. 3.
(3) Sec memorandum from L. J. Bernard to E. M. Jeffrey, Review
Division, dated July 27, 1934, Exhibit 4.
9845
based on conditions in that trade, whi ch upon approval of the Admin-
istrator shall become operative as a part of that. code. Where the
Code Authority had made its recommendations pursuant to such pro-
vision which had been approved and therefore become a part of the
code, it was held that the Code Authority as to such action represent-
ed the entire industry and all members thereof had therefore partici-
pated by representation in the e stab lis'hme lit 'of su.ch amendment, hence
the stay was inoperative as to a member even though he files his
objections within the 10 day oeriod. (6)
(4) Whether action is that of an exemption or stay-
It will be noted that the Order grants relief to persons "who
apply for an exception to, or exemption from, or a modification of
the code." There seems no doubt that the relief pending such
hearing wastihat of an exemption as distinguished from a stay not
only from the express language of the Order but from the express
definition of the term-. "exemption" which applies tc rulings which
release an individual, 'group or class within an industry from the
full operation of a. code prevision as distinguished from that of the
term "stay" which applies t: not less than an entire industry. (6a)
nevertheless the relief provided by the Order was almost univer-
sally referred to as a "stay under executive Order 5205-1". The
terra "stay" no doubt was adopted becav.se of the phraseology :f the
last sentence of the Order, i.e. "and the Administrator shall if
justice requires, stay ..the application of the code tc all similarly
affected." While generally known as a "stay" the relief was however
handled as an exemption and orders terminating the "stay" were signed
by the Division Administrators.
IV. Operation and affect
The relief provided by the Order was availed of quite generally
by non-assenting members of the industry. Hearings in many cases
were delayed with the resu.lt that many members of industry enjoyed
exemptions for considerable periods of time and in many instances
during the entire life of the code. Under the Order the exemptions
became :' operative, upon, the mere filing of the application without
tiie necessity of racking a snowing.
VThile reports from all industries have not been received, reports
have been received from 410 industries. They comprise Dxnibits 4 A,
(6) Memorandum from L. J. Bernard, Exhibit ITo. 3
(6A) Definition of «3xemption" - Office Manual III, Sec. 3210iard "Stay"
Section 3211 - See also Review Division Precedent ITo. 07, - Office
Manual III, Section 3200.
J.»_ U ^. J, i ,/ ,
9845
- 7 -
4 B, 4 C, 4 D, ?.nd 4 Z. Ua • ". cutive Order, 517 applications
_warfi.-iEa.do. Final disposition v? s made in 230 cases. In ."287 casos
no final actio:: hac" been taken b t.. stays reuiainod in affect
during the life if th= code. (7)
The report from IidftSaertsry 5t ;ti n 1 is quite complete and is
therefore susceotible' _>f fuxt.it r analysis. It includes the basic
Construction Code and 23 supplementary codes of the Construction
Industry. The report also includes 3 other industries in that Sec-
tion. An analysis of this report shows the following:
IT . o: codes involved 33
. plications 455
[No. of cases in which final
dispositi m has been made 135
lie. of casos in which no dis-
position has o. .;. made 270
Periods of stays in 18E casos:
I. Less than one montn from the effective date of code 2
From 1 to 2 months 3
From 7 to 8 months 26
From 3 to 9 months 3
From 9 to 10 months 86
From 10 to 11 months 64
From 11 to 12 months 1
V. Conclusi.n
From the above it will bo noted that a large number of concerns
obtained complete immunity from liability under codes by the more
filing of an application without the necessity of making even a prima
facie showing, many for p lone period of time and in the majority
of cas=s during the entire life of the code, 'here hearings were held
the. stays were in most instances terminated, indicating that most of
such applicants were not entitled to relief. It would therefore
appear that some provision should have been made for a prompt deter-
mination of such applications. Possibly a general order requiring
supplementary or post-code hearin, s upon such applications within a
(7) The disposition of 10 applications not shown
9845
~ 8
stated period from the effective dates of codes would have met
the legal and constitutional requirements and 'at the same time
insured prompt disposition. A single hearing might have been
allowed for all members objecting to a code. For members who
could net attend such hearing, provision' could have been made
for submission of factual data and briefs, to ITZiA on or before the
date of such hearing or within such -orescribed -oeriedt.
9845
b. ex&ipticws to poor:::...
Io Origin of Order
II, Executive and Administrative Orders
III. 'Administration
IV« Operation and Effect
V. Conclusion
I. Origin of Order
There lias teen in existence for a number of years cooperative or-
ganizations, The genuine cooperative is ordinarily the Parmer's Coopera-
tive or the Consumers' Cooperative. They are usually incorporated. The
Farmers' Cooperative performs the function of a marketing agency for the
farm products of its members and in many cases also acts as a purchasing
agency, usually for supplies used in the production of the products
marketed "by the organization^
As a purchasing agency the organizations secure the quantity dis-
count which is passed on to the members, usually in the form of natron-
age dividends. These dividends are paid at fixed periods and represent
the net income after the deduction of administrative and fixed expenses
and are payable to the member in amounts proportionate to their respec-
tive purchases. Consumers cooperatives operate on the same -principle
exce-ot that it pets merely as a purchasing agency and does not include
the marketing feature,, There are other so-called cooperatives which
contain some but not all of the features of the above described organiza-
tions, as, for example.! establishments which allow discounts to pur-
chasers but which do not act solely as agents of the members.
A number of codes contain provisions designed to limit the payment
of rebates, refunds ana unearned discounts to purchasers. It can, there-
fore, be readily seen that such provisions prohibit or might be construed
to prohibit the operations of cooperatives. In order to permit coopera-
tives to continue to function the Department of Agriculture recommended
an Executive Order excepting cooperatives from such code provisions. As
a result of such recommendations, the President on October 23, 1933
signed Executive Order Wo. 6355. 1/
I I . Executive and Administrative; Orders
This Executive Order provided that i • code or agreement theretofore
or thereafter approved should be construea to prohibit the payment of
patronage dividends in accordance with law by any bona fide and legi-
timate cooperative organization, including farmers' cooperatives, pro-
vided such patronage dividends were paid out of actual earnings and were
not paid at the time the member makes the purchase from the cooperative
organizations*
It will be noted that the above Crder is not in the form of an
exemption. As to codes thereafter formulated it constituted a general
policy that no code should contain provisions prohibiting the payment
of patronage dividends by cooperatives under the conditions prescribed.
1_/ Copy of Executive Order Wo. 6355, see Exhibit Wo. 5.
9845
..- 10 -
However, as to those codes previously approved containign provisions
prohibiting the payment of patronage dividends or susceptible of that
construction, the order operated to relieve cooperatives from such pro-
visions and to that ex tent. amounted to a general exemption.
The immunity of cooperatives from code provisions was further en-
larged "by Executive Order 6606-A, dated February 17, 1934. l/ This
Order declared (l) Than no provision in any code or agreement thereto-
fore or thereafter approved should "be construed to make it a code vio-
lation to sell to or through any "bona fide and legitimate cooperative
or any intervening .agency of such cooperatives; (2) That no code should
be construed to prevent such cooperatives from being entitled to receive
or distribute to its members as patronage dividends or otherwise the
proceeds derived from any discounts, commission, rebate or dividends
ordinarily or by code provision, allowed to purchasers of wholesale or
middle— man quantities; (3) The Administrator was authorized to determine,
after such hearings and proceedings as he may. deem necessary, whether in
any doubtful oase, an organization is or is not a bona fide and legi-
timate' cooperative organization entitled to. the benefits of this Order,
Pursuant to the above Executive Order the Administrator by an Order
dated May 18, 1934, 3/ entitled "Definition of Farmers, and Consumers
Cooperative" No. X-35, prescribed the following conditions to "be ful-
filled in order that such .organizations "be entitled to the protection
of the Executive Order: (l) Be organized under laws of a state, terri-
tory of the District of Columbia; (2) Permit each member owning one
paid share of membership one vote only in matters affecting management
of the organization, unless otherwise provided "by the law under which it
is incorporated; provided a central or regional association made up of
cooperative associations may permit voting based upon volume of busi-
ness done "by members with regional- association, or on the number of mem-
bers in the member ■ association; (3) Operate on a cooperative basis for
the mutual "benefit of members, and all income, after pro.viding for re-
serves and dividends on stock not to exceed 8^o, must be distributed to
members or shareholders on patronage "basis at stated periods not more
frequently than semi-annually; (4) lion-member business not to exceed in
value the member business during any fiscal year; (5) Permit members"
access to records to determine compensation of officers and employees,
and no salaries or commissions are to be paid except for actual ser-
vices; (6) Distribute patronage dividends to members according to amount
of "business with the association; may permit such dividends of a non-
member to accumulate until they equal the value of a share of stock when
the same may be issued; patronage dividends must not be made in form of
refund at time of purchase; no evidence of any such dividends by agree-
ment or representation to distribute a definite amount may be made; (7)
Not more than 3$ of the Capital raised may be allowed for service or
organizers; (8) Conduct its affairs in the interest of the members. The
control or management may not b^ by no n-co operative organizations or
persons to whom surplus savings or unreasonable compensation are paid;
and may not be required to buy commodities from a specified non-coopera-
tive concern; (9) Comply with codes for industries in which they operate.
l/ Copy of Executive Order No. 6606-A, See Exhibit No. 6
2/ Copy of Administrative Order, Exhibit No. 7.
9845
- 11 ~
On June IS, 1934., a ruling in interpretation '"as'risfiued (Administra-
tion Order I'os. 182-11 p 5 1 r-ll\ (*< tr. '"foot that Administrative
Order X-35 applied to any bona fide ad legitimate cooperative and was not
limited to farriers' and consumers1 organizations. This ruling was made
necessary because o^ tho doubt created by the caption of X-35, i.e., "De-
finition of .Farmers' a->d consumers' Cooperatives."
On October 12, 1934 Administrative Order No. X-98 was issued for the
purpose of clarifying the provisions of Executive Order No. 6606--A.
Order X-98 deals with brokerage commissions, providing that no code shall
be construed or applied to make it a violation thereof for a member to
pay a brokerage commission to a bona fide end legitimate cooperative per-
forming the function for which other persors may properly be paid compensa-
tion, and that no cognizance shall be taken of the fact that such coopera-
tive will distribute its earnings, including such brokerage commissions,
to its members in the form of patronage dividends, or the fact that such
members may be the purchasers of the products in connection with which such
commissions were realized. (**)
III . Administration
In accordance with Office .morandum 205, natters relating to coopera-
tive organization were referred to Division 8, of which Mr. Linton LI.
Collins was the Division Administrator. This division was later named
the Public Agencies Division. The furhter personnel was as follows.:
Assistant Deputy Administrator, V. J. Clarke
Legal: Howard 3. Wahrenbrock, Sydney 3. Prince,
Peter Seitz, William Wise
Research and Planning: James Porter Davis
Labor: Rose Schheidsrmann, Sydney Sufrin
Consumers: The late Mrs. Mary Rumsey, Mercer G-. Johnston
Industrial: Walter Whi'te
IV. Operation and Effect
There has te^n considerable objection on the part of some industries
to the protection afforded cooperatives. The controversy was particularly
acute in the Salt Manufacturers' Industry, the Code Authority for that
industry being opposed to the recognition of certain cooperative organiza-
tions as bona fide distributors of their product. It was principally due
to this controversy that Administrative Order X-98 (dealing with brokerage
commissions) was issued. There was also objection from the Food Industry,
the code for this industry having definitely prohibited the -oayinent of
brokerage to buyers ">r to agents of buyers.
(*) Administration Order Nos, 182-11 and 196-11, Exhibit No.
(**) Order X-98, See Exhibit l"o. 9
9845
' - - 1» -
particular 'objection ^as directed against Administrative Order X-98,
the Public Agencies' Division having' received in the month of May, 1935,
over 100 letters requesting a reconsideration of this Order*- To meet
these protests the matter of possible 'revision of Orders X-35 and X-98
was referred to a committee consisting of Messrs. Walton Hamilton, member
of the National Industrial Recovery Iloard, Willard 1, Thome, member of
the Advisory Council and Mr. Linton M. Collins, Division Administrator.
'A tentative draft of a proposed ruling was prepared excluding the
so-called commercial coo-oeratives from the definition of bona fide, and
legitimate cooperatives as that term was used in the Executive Orders.
No formal order was actually issued, however, due to the fact that the
decision of the Schechter Case was rendered before final action by the
Committee.
V. Conclusion
Cooperative organizations seem to have become firmly established in
this country. In the aggregate they carry on a large volume of business.
This is especially true in the West. A more comprehensive xmderstanding
of the subject would reauire a special study of cooperatives. While much
of the controversy involved the matter of determining teat was to be con-
sidered the -genuine and legitimate cooperative, actually it is. believed
there was a more basic conflict .between the two methods of business.
Many of the code -orovisions were designed. to -oromote the welfare of the
particular industry with the resultant advantage to all the members of
the particular industry* This is -particularly true with regard to the
various orovisions relating to -orices and terms of sale. On the other
hand the cooperative- cuts squarely through organization by industries to
the detriment of the industry but to the. corresponding advantage of the
producer or the consumer or both. The immediate benefit therefore to the
consumer and nroducer is arroarent and aioeears to have been demonstrated by
the growth of large coo-oerative organizations. Whether the coo-cerative
method is of benefit to business or society generally or- "whether its ulti-
mate effects might be detrimental even to the -croducer or consumer is a
more debatable question. It is'nrobable that coo-oeratives have not de-
veloped to a -ooint where their effects on general business can be measured
and at this stage of development , one's oninion is governed largely by
his basic philosophy of social economy.
A -oreliminary draft of a History of Coo-oeratives has been proposed by
the Jublic Agencies Division. Considerable information contained herein
was obtained from this preliminary draft.
9845
-13-
c. e;gip':'IO"'S to z.hlo: ' U t...;.: :j&^ population
I. ; ' bir to I ' e t's Reemployment
A ''''"' '': it
II. He ti . . to Co i
III. Ope: ■tic: ct
I . Relating to preside it's Reemployment Agreement
The Rational Recovery Act, approved Jane 15, 1933, authorized the
President to enter into and approve voluntary agreements with persons
engaged in a trade or industry and with lat>or, trade or industrial
associations, relating to any trade or industry.
The president's Reemployment Agreement was issued pursuant thereto,
to remain in effect until the approval of a code by the President to
which the signatory became subject or until substitutions of any of
the provisions of the Agreement (Paragraph l). In paragraph (4) of the
Agreement it was provided that the maximum hours fixed in paragraph (2)
and (3) thereof, were not to apply to establishments employing not more
than two persons in towns of less than 2500 population which towns "ere
not part of a larger trade area. 1
1 1 . Relating- to Codes
In Executive Order "To. 6354, dated October 23, 1933, it "as stated
that the purpose. of the exemption thereby conferred was intended to re-
lieve small business enterprises in small towns from fixed obligations
which might impose exceptional hardship but that it was expected that
all such enterprises would conform to the fullest ■ extent possible with
the requirements which would have '"oeen otherwise obligr tory upon them.
The Order provided that the president's Reemployment Agreement should
not be held to apply to employers engaged only locally in retail trade
or in local service industries (not in interstate commerce) "ho do not
employ more than five persons and are located in towns of less than
2500 population (according to the 1930 Federal Census) which are not
in the immediate trade area of a city of a larger population except
that employers who have signed the Agreement and desire to continue
to comply therewith may do so. It was further provided that the exemp-
tion should also apply to the same extent to those employers signing
the PHA but at that time subject to a substituted code from those ob-
ligations not voluntarily assumed under such code.
It will be noted that Executive Order 6354 -differs principally
from the provision in PHA in that: (1) PHA. relates to all establish-
ments, the Order effects only retail trade and local service indus-
tries; (2) PHA. limits the exemption to establishments employing not
more than t"o persons, the Order limits the exemption to those employ-
ing not more than five persons; (3) the former releases employers solely
from the provisions of PHA whereas the latter releases signatory parties
Bulletin "To. 3 containing PHA, Exhibit lTo. 10
2
Executive Order Wo. S354, Exhibit :To, 11
9845
- 14 -
to PRA not only from the provisions of PRA out to the sane extent from ,--
code provisions as to obligations not voluntarily assumed by them under
codes.
The above order was amended by Executive Order No. 6710, approved
May 15, 1933, providing that employers engaged only locally in retail
trade or local service trades who operate not more than three establish-
ments in towns of less than 2500 ; ovulation and not in the immediate
trade area of a larger town would be exempt from the President's Re-
eimloyment Agreement and those provisions of approved codes relating
to hours, wages, minimum prices of merchandise or services and collec-
tion of assessments, except insofar as employers might signify their
intention to be bound.
The effect of the amendment was to extend the e: emotion to employ-
ers who operate not more, than three establishments rather than five,
as provided by the previous Order and also to exempt employers not only
from the provisions of PEA but from hour, wage, minimum price and assess-
ment collection provisions of codes as well.
4
Administrative Order X~72 dated August 6, 1934, prescribed rules
and regulations relating to the application of Executive Order 6710
and designates the "retail or local service trades" to be: Bailing
(retail), Motor Vehicle Sto-Eage and Parking, Retail JPood and Grocery,
Retail Jewelry, Retail Tobacco, Retail Trade (including Drug and Boole-
sellers), Barber Shop, Eowling ana Billiard Operating Trade, Cleaning
and Dyeing Laundry, Real Estate Brokerage, Shoe Rebuildar, Hotel, and
Restaurant Industry and the following industries or trades not then
codified, Confectioners, Milk at Retail, Beauty Parlors and such other
trades or industries as the Administrator would from time to time design-
ate. The term "town" was also defined and the conditions under which
"towns of less than 2500 population" -were deemed to be "in the immediate
trade area" of a larger city. Vanufacturir.g andwholesaling were ec-
cluded from the Order. The method of relief was provided for employers
not included in the exemption but who claimed to be injured from com-
petition of those exempted. Those engaged both in one of the above C
designated trades or industries and a business not so included, where
such operations were not readily segregable were exempt only where the
business covered by that order constituted the employer's principal line
and such product constituted more than 50 per cent of the gross sales.
Where the business was segregable only the department whose principal
business (as above defined) covered by the trades ">r industries enumer-
ated above were exempted.* When part of a business was exempted the em-
ployer was not liable for assessments based upon that part. Employers
complying with eddns to the extent not exempted were entitled to dis-
play NRA insignia.
By Administrative Order ho. 46-10, dated May 29, 1934, it was ruled
that employers engaged in 'the Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade were bound
by the code for that industry regardless of the size of the town in
which their place of business was located.
III. deration and Effect
Other than the above orders there was little f~orther administrative
3 Executive Order 6710, Exhibit ho*. 12
Administrative Order X-72 , Exhibit No. 13
9845
action. The Code Authorities investigated and followed up the matter
of what towns were entitled to the exemptions. The United States Census
records were ordinarily conclusive upon the question of whether or not
the population of a particular town was less than 250C. However Adminis-
trative Order X-72-1, dated August 23, 1934, recited that the census
of 1930 listed the town of Glasgow, Llontana as a town of less than 2500
hut that it appearing that the population of that town was then in excess
of 2500 it was ordered that for the purposes of the administration of
Executive Order 6710 such town should he deemed to have a population in
excess of 2500.
Question also arose as to., whether a particular community was within
the immediate trade area of,' a' larger town. This arose in a number of
instances concerning factory communities located outside the "boundaries
of towns. However these controversies were usually settled without the
necessity of official rulings. On the whole the exemption to establish-
ments in towns of less than 2500 population seemed to have become oper-
ative with very little complications.
9845
- IS -
D. EXEIiTTIC'dS TO S'RVICB TRADES
I. Origin of Order
II. Executive and Adminis'tr-cive Orders
III. Operation and Effect
I. Origin of Prefer ,
SeiVa.ce crades, as that tern was used in HRA, consists of those
trades or industries which perform personal services' such as barter
shops, cleaning and dyeing, hotels, etc. At the time of the ap- roval
of these codes, considerable doubt was expressed by representatives
of these industries whether or not, in view of their purely local or
intra-state character, the National Industrial Recovery Act was applicable.
The Executive Order approving the Co.e for the Barber Shop Trade (Ho. 598)
provided that, this code should not become ef i'eff ective until certain
conditions therein set forth were fulfilled, including the requirement
that the Code Authority designate the boundari- s f trade areas, establish
local administrative Boards for such tree areas and that the Code Authority
enter into a price stabilization agreement in such trade area with the
President, the Local Administrative Board anc not less than 70;.' of the
number of members of the trade in such area. {l) Similar conditions were
embodied in the Code for the Laundry Trade. (2)
The Codes for service trades were generally ineffectual, even
as to industries in which codes had become e: fective. These industries
consist of numerous small enterprises. There exists in this branch
of industry probably a higher percentage of one-man companies or
working proprietors and those employing only one man, than in any otner
branch of industry. As a result, organization in these industries was
difficult. The net result was an almost comnlete breakdown in code
compliance. A more detailed e'eseri" tion of the conditions prevailing
at that time wil" be i ound in the Coc'e Histories for industries.
I I . Executive and Administrative Orders
In order to meet this situation, Executive Order No. 6723 was
issued by the President on May 26, 193d. It provided that all pro-
visions in codes of such service trades or industries as should
thereafter he designated by the Administrator were suspended, except
those of Child Labor, iiinimum Hour, l.'iniraum Fay cmd the mandatory
provisions of Section 7(a) and 10 (b) of the National Industrial
Recovery Act, provided that in any locality in which 85 > of the mem-
bers of a design'.te, trade or industry should ofier to abide by a
local code for that locali :y, the Administrator, aft^r approval of
(1) Vol. IX, page 331 - Bound Volume of Code
(2) Vol. VI, page 281 - Bound Volume of Code
3345
- 17 -
such code, vets authorized bo enter into such agreement s . (3)
In t :•-■ let .er >f reco endation, . arit rn t the Administrator
to the President, it ■ ■ ■ . dies of thi eration and
effect oi codes for a ■* rvi: br and Industrie's indicated
the necer~ity for relieviiv b e ".'■_, ti exce dve =ic ministrative
burden in securin, L . ■■ ft 02 these ci s uid to permit of more
effective administration >i oth r cbi aving* greater concern with
the industrial structure 4 which liad been unduly hampered thereby.
By Executive Order No. 675S-A, (4) dated June 26, 1934, the
President offered to enter into an agreement with members of such
service trades not theretofore codified, on condition that in any
locality eighty-five per cent of the members thereof should agree
to abide oy a local code of trade practices sug ested by them for
that locality.
Executive Order 6723, having provided that the Administrator
should designate the trade;: and industries included under the Order
the following Administrative Drdi rs were issued:
Order Ho. X-27, cat ; 1934, design ting Motor Vehicles;
Storage & Packing; Bowling ft 3illiards; Earber Shop; Cleaning
& Dyeing; Advertising Display Installation & Advertising Distri-
buting Trade.
Order Ho. X-50, dated Jun 15 j la 4, Laundry.
Order Ho. X-54, date-.' June 38 J 1 34, Hotel.
On June 25, 1934/ Administrative Order H-53, was issued pre-
scribing rules and regulations with respect to bhe 'operation of Execu-
tive Order 6733, including the conditions un er which members subject
to the Order were entitle', to fiisp'l 2 the Blue Ea^'le-. It was also
providea that all parts of the' d- . ■'. :' codes » to the extent nec-
essary, were in effect for the vmrposes of the operation of Execu-
tive Order 6723, exceat tr; s practice and code administration pro-
visions"^ (5)
As previously stated the Barber Shop and the Laundry Trade Codes
were not to become operative until the fulfillment of the conditions
prescribed in the Order of Approval. . At the time of the above
Executive Order, those conditions had not been fulfilled, and
CiT ExecutiVe Order Ho. 6723, ExlTibTt Ho/ T3T "
(4) Executive Order Ho.. 6756-A, Exhibit Ho-. 15
(5) Administrative. Order X-53, 'Exhibit Ho--. 16
9845
hence such Orders were not effective. The Administrative Order,
therefore, made such provisions effective .for the purpose of op-
eration under Executive Ordsr 6723.
III. Operation and Effect
The Executive Order was not favorably received "by the trades
and industries affected. Considerable effort had previously been
made tc organize these industries more effectively. Many were en-
deavoring to establish minimum price provisions. A series of con-
ferences were being held in various parts of the United States with
a view of remedying the breakdown in code compliance in the Hotel
Industry, and a movement was on foot to establish minimum rates.
The Order in question, of course, nullified all such efforts.
Code Authorities in the industries affected were, in effect,
abolished by the Order. There was, therefore, considerable resent-
ment from these industries.
On June 20, 1934, the Executive Committee of the Code Author-
ity for the Cleaning and Dyeing Trade wrote the President "that this
Code Authority considers that the code for the Industry was no
longer in force and effect with respect to any of its provisions and
that, so far as it was within their power, the assent to this code
is the reby wi thdrawn . " ( 6 )
On June 36, 1934, the Administrator replied that inasmuch as
the administrative .provisions of the Cleaning and Dyeing Code were
suspended by Executive Order 6723, the Code Authority authorized
under such provisi.ns was, accordingly, suspended and could not,
therefore, at that time, be deemed tc be representative of that
Trade or have authority to act on its behalf, hence the assent
to this code could not be wi thdrawn by that body. (7)
Pursuant to the Executive Order, local codes wore submitted by
the following industries and trades -
Cleaning and Dyeing submitted approximately 54 local codes,
nearly all of which contained provisions for minimum prices.
§hoe Eebuildin^ Industry submitted 277 local codes, nearly
all of which contained provisions for minimum prices.
Barber Shop Industry submitted 277 local codes, all of
which contained requests for rninimum-'orices.
(6) Copy of letter from Code Committee - Exhibit ITo. 17
(7) Copy of the above letter - Exhibit ITo. 18
9845
' »r Vehicle ano Storage i i ait ted 3.
Laun< ry It di su m: I i 1.
tic tries n - - ntionec' submitted no coder.
The policy ri I ' > rove provisions for establish-
minimum prices. Therefore, of lo..al coc.es submitted, there were
approved on r in the Shoe Re uildiiig md two inCleaning andDye-
ing Ir de. The codes a' ■ v ii not oaontai.j minimum price orovisions.
(3)
Since the Code Authority v-as the enforcement as well as the
administrative agency of industry, the elimination of such bodies
resulted in still greater disregard for these code provisions re-
maining in of foot, i.e., labor provisions. Cocne enforcement in
those trades or industries were virtual.. y ■ med rnd non-com-
pliance became gener; 1. This situation continuec1 until the date
of the Executive Order suspending al? codes.
(8) See also Chater IV of "Agreements under Sections 4 (a) and 7 (b)
of '_:. I. R. A.", b; Creston A. Giblin, Administration Studies.
9G45
- 20 -
S . hlhlTSD EXEilPTIOh FhO' L PELVIS IOhS Oh C'DES III
COIHTECTIGi: ;,rITI" SALES TC HOSPITALS
I. Origin of Order
II. The Order
III. Operation and Effect
IV. Conclusion
Origin of Order
An application, on behalf of the hospitals of the
United States supported by public subscription or endowment and not
operated for profit, was made for an exemption from any Code to all
industrv or trade members vv..:en dealing with sue'., hospitals. As a
1 ■
result of such application, Administrative Order X-4 was signed
by Hugh 3. Johnson, Administrate r, upon t'-e recommendation of
A. D. V/hit&si&e," Division Administrator.
II. The Order
The essence of tie order is quoted as follows:
"It is hereby ordered that those members of
industries subject to cedes of Fair Competi-
tion who sell or may sell supplies or materials
to hospitals cf the United States which are
supported by public subscription or endowment,
and not operated for profit, within the limita-
tions hereinafter provided, be and the;' are
hereby exempted from compliance with provisions
of such codes governing sales, provided, how-
ever, that the exemption hereby granted shall
be limited to an operative only in connection
with sue': sales made by such members tc such
institutions. "
Further provision was made for it to take effect in ten
(10) days, unless otherwise ordered by the Administrator and was dated
January 23, 1934.
III. Operation and Effect
lie dcubt the purpose of this order v/as to relieve chari-
table hospitals from sharing in the burden of national recovery and
thereby increase the usefulness of the funds at their disposal, how-
ever, the order had scarcely been signed when objections to it came
pouring into the PRA. Those industries relying largely upon hospital
trade and which were operating under codes or the PEA made objection
See Exhibit ho. 19,
934-5
- 21 -
on the grounds t i t tie;/ could not sell below established prices and
comply with the requirements of t.:e coO.es or PRA as to hours and wages
As a result of these >r tests, Administrative Order X-5^ was issued
February 2, 1931. 3j the terms of that order, the provisions of
Administrative jrder X-4 were stayed for a period of thirty "(30.) days
from date of X-5 to give considerate n to the objections made.
The order reserved the right to t.ie Administrator tc suspend the
effective date thereof by further r.rder.
In the petition or brief 3/, dated February 26, 1934, and
presented en behalf of the X-Ray and Slectro-Medical Products Groups
of the Electrical Manufacturing Industry, a protest was made to the
Staying Order of X-4 and the continuation of X-4. The following ex-
cerpts from that document seem to give a picture of conditions during
the period of X-5:
"As soon as it became generally known that
Order X-4, dated January 33, 193d, had been
issued, a very marked decrease in business
occurred in the X-Ray aid Hlectro-Kedical
Groups, due to the fact that the hospitals
of this country demanded exemptions from
the codes for their purchases; since the
issuance of tie Staying Order, all orders
of customers have been held in abeyance
pending the final decision on this matter.
This stagnation in business will continue, in
our opinion, as long as there is any delay in
deciding whether the original Order X-d will
be allowed to stand or will be permanently
withdrawn; Based on the anticipation that
Order X-4 will be allowed to remain in effect
after March 5th, one hospital in Baltimore has
already demanded of us a 1'5/j discount on our
products which it anticipates purchasing.
"We are no longer interested in a further stay
of the original order and herewith submit
factual data, which we know will furnish suffi-
cient information to warrant the NRA to with-
draw Order X-d permanently, at least insofar
as it relates tc the X-Ray and Electromedi-
cal products.
2/ See Exhibit Ho. 20.
3/ This document is filed in folder marked "Division VII!
Charitable Institutions - X-4 - S. R. Prince, Jr. "
and at the time of this writing is in the custody of
Effie Lee Lioore, formerly Acting Executive Assistant,
Division VIII.
98 45
22 -
,r.7e acknowledge that the intention back of
the issuance of Order X— '1 is' commendable.
It will have little effect on most' indus-
tries, such as t os,e sup plying food, coal,"
furniture, linens, and the large majority
of other items purchased by hospitals each
year. These latter, named industries may
find it possible to offer the hospitals
special discounts on purchases, .because
their total sale's to hospitals are net more
than 5j or 1QV of the total sales of such
industries. It is more important to note
that in the case of the X-Bay and Electro-
medical Groups of the Electrical Manufactur-
ing Industry, our sales to hospitals is 60, >
of our business and closely allied are our
sales to doctors of 36p additional, thus
accounting for all but 4j of our sales. There-
fore, we present this brief, asking that the
manufacturers of X-Ray and Electro- iiedical
Products be exempted under X-4.
********.*****
"Under t.e terms of the original Order X-4 we
fail to see how cur manufacturers can differ-
entiate between sales made to any class of
hospitals, due to the fact that it is almost
impossible tc define the so-called "private
hospital' or those hospitals w . .ich are sup-
ported b ' public subscriptions and endowments
end not operated for profit. (As an example,
in the City of Baltimore, all hospitals re-
ceive a set sum every year from the State of
Maryland or from the City; Johns Hopkins
hospital receives a very substantial sura each
year from the State. Another instance is the
Swedish Hospital in 3rooklyn, New York, which
is ran for profit and, on the other hand, re-
ceives free ambulance service from the City
of l"ei.7 York, paid for by taxes.)
*************
"Order X-4 makes no statements as to whether
exempted hospitals include those hospitals
supported by taxes. ",7e believe that they are,
and if net, the Order will soon have to be ex-
tended to include them.******
"The question then arises as tc whether "this
order would not soon be further extended to
educational institutions, tax-supported and
9845
otherwise, wh \.c. . use X-Ray and Electro-Medical
... t.
"7e res lectfully call 3'our attention to the fact
• X- cites not prevent purchasing by
hos :t n s rn.'. t sir re ] ! Ln ; to others. ",7e
icn w that cur groups con not maintain sales tc
'* ctcrs on published prices within tile Code
ulations and at the same time sell to hos-
litals wit:: - t tal disregard as t: sales of
all existing cedes. '.7e believe t>-e doctors
will naturally lirchase through hospitals or
demand equal rices and tat would br'.ng
r :tic ; ' all cf our business under exemp-
tion from codes on sales."
Tl^e document goes on to point out that to permit the application
of X-4 tc their industry would leave tc individual manufacturers and
vendors the right to determine wh t er any hospital wa.s cr was not
v/ithin the sco;to of the order, tut -t would foster price-cutting and
discrimination and other unfair trade u-acticer.
In response to the v r ls ■ t t lade, Adminlstra.tive
Order X-o 4/ was issued, March 3, 1934. Tils order ..ir.de permanent
the stay created by X-5 insofar as it affected the X-Hay and Electro-
Medical Apparatus as covered by the Code for tee Electric-... Manu-
facturing Industry, the Scientific Apparatus Industry and oil other
industries that established to the satisfaction of the Administrator
that e. substantial pert of t sir supplies or materials were sold to
hospitals covered by X-4 and also s itisfied the Administrator that
justice required the relief granted be Order X-8, This Order was
signed by hugh S. Jo;mson, Administrator for Industrial Recovery,
upon the recommendation of A. D. jhiteside, Division Administrator.
Later it was establis'. ed to the s; tisfaction of the Adminis-
trator that a substantial part of the supplies and materials of the
signalling Apparatus Subdivision .f the Electrical Manufacturing In-
fo-try were sold to hospitals of tie United States supported by
public subscripti.n or endowment and not operated for profit, and
upon this finding Administrative Order X- 34 5/, issued April 21,
1034, stayed permanently the terms of X—'.- in so far as it affected
this industry.
Administrative Order X-39 6/ was issued May 28, 1934. This
order modified X-4 so as to require members of the Bituminous Coal
Industry, tie Vholesale Coal Industry and the Retail Solid Fuel In=-
rlustry t. fully comply with the requirements of Coal Cedes in sell-
4/ See Exhibit he. 21..
5/ Se Ex ibit No. 22.
&/ See Exhibit ho. .03.
0045
- 24 -
ing coal to hospitals. Eie order stated the reason for tlie issuance
was t" .at objections Iiad been filed to the prcvisicn-s of X-4 by members
of the Coal Industry, and that it had been established tc the satis-
faction of the Administrator that justice require! the modification.
It is noticeable that the recitation clause doer, not say "that a
substantial part of their supplies or materials are sold to such
hospitals" as set out in the Staying Clause of X-8 .
The records show that industry members who had considerable
dealings with hospitals and were subject to a cede or a P?A made
considerable objection to X-4 in so far as .it affected their indus-
try, because the order, in effect, prohibited them from dealing
with hospitals. Such an effect resulted from hospitals refusing
tc deal with such members without a substantial reduction in prices.
In cases where members of a code refused to reduce prices to
hospitals, sales were almost entirely curtailed, pending a deter-
mination of the Administrator as t. whether or net such industry
membexrs should comply with the provisions of their code. This
condition brought about considerable confusion concerning the
Order X-4 during the early months after its issuance, which was to
a great extent corrected by Administrative Orders X-8, X-24 and
X-39.
IV. Conclusions
The records indicate that the depression had brought
about a condition w„ere the number of people requiring charitable
hospitalization in whole or in part had greatly increased over
pre-'-.epressicn times and that likewise the subscriptions and dona-
tions to hospitals had reached a much lower level, thus placing
upon t.e shoulders of the institutions a burden which they v/ere
financially unable to carry. To make t. e hospitals rarchase
supplies at the increased prices caused oy the codes and T'Rk would
but reduce their ability to carry the steadily increasing burden.
The Administrative Order X-4 had the effect of distributing this
burden among industry and because of this result those industries
whose major production was utilized by hospitals v/ere given re-
lief from the order. '.7ith these last-mentioned industries being
excluded from the provisions of X-4, that portion of the extra
burden of the hospitals which was shifted to industry was spread
among industry members whose great majority of sales v/ere made in
conformity to code regulations.
9845
- 35
HAEDI CAPPED WOMERS
I. Origin of Order
II. Executive Order iTo. 5606-3?
III. Procedure
IV. Summary of Administration by Labor
D jpartment
Origin of Order
The codification of industry presented the problem of the effect
upon the continued smployment nf persons handicapped by physical or mental
defect or by reason of age or other infirmities. It can readily be seen
that a minimum wage requirement might result in the discharge of those era-
ployees who by reasfu of such disabilities did not meet the standard of
efficiency reauired. This was soon recog Lzed.
Bulletin ~.o. 5, contains interpretation ~if the President's Eeenroloy-
ment Agreement, Interpretation lTo. 21, Paragraph 3, being as follows:
"Persons who are limited in their jarning power through
physical or mental defects, ago or other infirmities may be
employed on light duty below the minimum rage set by the
President's Agreement, and for longer hours than are therein
authorized, if the employer obtains from the State Labor
commission a certificate authorizing the employment of such
de f e c t i v e s in such manner . "
As codes superseded the PEA the auestion was presented as to what
disposition should be iade of authorizations "bo employ handicapped work-
ers issued- to concerns -hen they wer« onde'r PEA and numerous request for
advice were received from state authorities designated to issue these cer-
tificates. This gave rise to the issuance ~f Executive Order No. S606-P.
II. Executive Prior ':'o. GSOC-.?
This Order was signed February 17, 1934, and recited that a question
had arisen or might thereafter arise as to whether the minimum- ^?ge and
maximum hour provisions precluded those handicapped by physical or mental
defect, age or other infirmity from their former opportunities of obtain-
ing employment. The Order provided in part as follows: (*)
"A person whose earning capacity is limited because
of age, physical or. mental handicap, or other deformity,
may be employed on light work at a wage below the mini-
mum established by a Code, if the emo3.oyer obtains from
the state authority designated by the United States De-
partment of Labor a certificate authorizing such person's
'*) Executive Order ' o. 6506-F - Exhibit hro. 24
c,345
employment at such wages and for such hours as shall be
stated in the certificate. Such authority shall .be
quided by the instructions of the United States Depart- •
ment of Labor in issuing certificates to such perons.
Each employer shall file monthly with the Code Authority
a list of all such persons employed by him, showing the
wages paid to, and the maximum hours of work for, such
employees. "
III. procedure
The Administration of the exemption relating to handicapped persons
were in the hands of the United States Department of Labor. On ITovember
8, 1954, that Department issued Instructions to guide State Authorities
in the issuance of Certificates to Handicapped Workers? (*) etc., which
prescribed the method of procedure in such cases substantially as follows:
(1) An application was required to be filed by the employer with
the authorized state agency, to contain information concerning the employee,
such as his occupation, earnings and the wages and schedule proposed for
him as well as the minimum wage and maximum hours applicable to the same
occupation under the code. Where the handicap was other than age, a. doc-
tor's certifica.te, stating the exact nature and degree of the disability
was to be obtained and where the handicap was mental deficiency, a certi-
ficate was required from a psychiatrist or a. neurologist. The certificate
was required to be from a physician holding public office. Wherever pos-
sible, the state authority was to make an investigation at the -olace of
employment.
(2) In determining whether an employee was. to be" classified as a
handicapped worker, it was necessary to distinguish between workers with
infirmities and those whom the employer considered slow but who had no
specific handicap. It was also necessary to distinguish workers who had
physical or mental defects but whose earning power was not impared by
such defects.
The reduction in wages defended uoon the extent of the handicap.
When a code contained no provision relating to handicapped workers the
wage allowed was prescribed at not less .than 75 per cent of the code mini-
mum for that industry unless specifically approved ty the Department of
Labor. However, a differential of as low as 10 per cent was allowed where
the handicap warranted such differential. Longer hours than those pre-
scribed by the code for normal workers was not permitted, both because of
the tendency .to reduce the hour standards for all workers and because
the handicapped person, in general, was not physically able to work longer
hours than a. normal person.
(3) Unless specifically approved by the Labor Department, a certi-
ficate to work for less than the minimum wage was not permitted to be
granted for more than 5 per cent of the working force in a given estab-
lishment, except where a code specifically permitted the employment of a
(*) Instructions issued by Labor Department - Exhibit No. 25
9345
_ 27 .„
larger percentage. However, one handicapped worker was allowed in each
establishment, no natter how small, when, in the judgment of the State
Authority issuing certificates, the application was justified by the facts
of the case.
(4) Executions to the rules of the United States Department if La-
tor that a handicapped person may not be oaid less than 75 per cent of
the minimum, or that not more than 5 per cent of the workers in am'- one
plant should he so classified, was provided for in unusual cases of hard-
ship to the workers upon the recommendation of the State Authority.
(5) ITight -watchmen were"not" permitted to work longer hours than
prescribed by the code0* If hours were not limited by a code, a certi-
ficate was issued permitting employment for such Lours as seemed to the
issuing officer to be justified,
(6) A person receiving workmen's compensation on account of injury
could be employed at less than the minimum on light work until he was
able to resume his job provided the employer reported the particulars
of such light work to the State official designated to issue certificates
and to the State Supervisor of Vocational Rehabilitation,
IV. Summary of Administration ~oy Labor Department
The Division of Labor Standards, United States Department of Labor,
issued a report covering Handicapped Workers. (*) Dor more detailed
study this report will prove illuminating. In general it may be stated
that the Labor Department was confronted with the necessity of promulgat-
ing a uniform policy with respect to the issuance of certificates to em-
ploy hanC.ica.pped workers. With the view of accomplishing uniformity of
local administration, the state issuing officers met in Boston in
September, 1934, which meeting was attended by officers from the leading
industrial states. Among the problems considered was that of fixing an
age of employees which should be considered old. for the purpose of the
Executive Order. It was determined that disability from this cause varied
to such an extent in individual ca.ses and. depended so much on the parti-
cular work that no arbitrary age limit could be fixed. Another question
was what percentage of the number of such workers should be allowed, a
concern as compared to the total number of employees. This percentage
as has been seen was limited to five per cent.
A summary of applications for certificates while not complete show
a total of 21,136. Formal applications were granted and. certificates
issued in 17,203 cases. Applications were refused in 3,033 cases. Cer-
tificates were issued in at ?east TJ61 different codes and in 44 states
and. the District of Columbia. The greatest number of exemptions for
handicapped workers was from the Cotton Garment Code, there being 6,735
certificates issued, from the minimum wage provision of this code or more
than one third the total number of certificates issued. The next high-
est number was in the Canning Industry with 1,053 certificates. 23 codes
accounted for not less than 14,245 certificates or approximately 84 per
(*) Report of Labor Department on Handicapped Workers - Exhibit Ho. 26
5845
■~ 28 -
cent of the total issued, 276 certificates were revoked for violations
of the terms under which they were issued and 590 cancelled for various
other reasons.
I.Iany of the codes contained provisions relating to handicapped
workers. A summarization of 475 codes prepared hy the Research and plan-
ning Division of NRA (*) shows 277 codes, 2 amendments and 9 supplementary
codes containing provisions for exemptions of handicapped workers.
Information on" this subject is also to he found in "Policy on Ta'-es
"below the Minimum", Vork Materials Ho. 45.
(*) Report of Research and planning - Exhibit Mo. 27
9845
- 29 -
G. HGMEWOEKE.' S.
I . Origin of Order
II. Executive Order No. 6711-A
III. Procedure under Order
IV. Summary of Administration under Order
I . Origin of Order
A practice has prevailed among industrial concerns of offering
employment to persons who for various reasons are confined to their homes.
The type of work is of such nature that it is not necessary to be performed
in the factory but could be done in the hemes. While this offers an op-
portunity for employment to many who would otherwise have no means of earn-
ing a livelihood the practice on the whole has tended to create unfair com-
petitive conditions bee-. use it is difficult for the competitor of the con-
cern employing homeworkers to maintain fair standards of nours , wages and
working conditions for their employees who work in- the factories.. Previous
to NRA some efforts had been made to control this practice and reduce its
evils to a minimum. A considerable number of codes prohibited homework.
These code provisions, however, brought forth p. number of complaints from
individual workers who were confined to their homes because of age, infirm-
ity or because their services were needed to care for an invalid.
In March 1924, a consultation was held between the Secretary of
Labor and the Administrator of the NRA. wnich resulted in the setting up of
a joint committee of NBA and the Department of Labor to study the problem,.
As a result of the committee's activities an executive order was recommended
to the President wnich resulted in the issuance of Executive Order No.
6711-A.
I I . Executive Order No. 671 WA
This Order was signed May 15, 1§34". It recited that the question
had arisen or might thereafter arise as to whether the abolition of home-
work had Tir£cluded certain persons v/ho were incapacitated for factory work
from their former opportunity of obtaining employment and then provided
that no code in which homework is prohibited theretofore or thereafter
approved snould be construed or applied as to violate the regulations there-
inafter set forth. (*) These regulations provided in part as follows:
"1. A person could be permitted to engage in home-
vork at the same rate of wages paid for the
same type of work performed in the factory or
other regular place of business if a certificate
was obtained from the St'- -te authority
or other officer designated by the United
States Department of Labor, such certificate
'was to be granted in accordance -with. iast-ruo-»
tions.. issued -by -the' 'United States Department
of Labor'; Provided •
(*) Executive Order No. 6711-A - Exhibit No. 28,
9845
~ 30 -
(a) Such person was physically incapacitated
for work in a factory or ether regular
place of business and was free from any
contagious disease; or
(b) Such person was unable to leave home
because his or ner services were ab-
solutely essential for attendance on
a person who Was bedridden or an in-
valid and botn such persons were free
from any contagious dise se.
"2. Any employer engaging such a person should keen
such certificate on file and file with the Code
Authority for the trade or industry or subdivi-
sion thereof concerned the name and address of
each worker so certificated.
Tnis order should not apply to or affect Codes
of Fair Competition theretofore or thereafter
approved for food or allies products trades,
industries or subdivisions tnereof, wnich con-
tained provisions prohibiting the manufacture
and/or processing of food products in homes."
Ill . Procedure under Order
Pursuant to the order, the U. 3. Deoartment of Labor on June 1,
1934, issued instructions relating to the certificates , (*) in which it
was recited that the order applied to codes approved or to be thereafter
approved, which contained a provision prohibiting nome work in the industry
or part thereof, excepting the food or allied products industries , and had
no effect upon codes which did not contain such a prohibition, and furtner
provided substantially as follows: ..
(a) A joint application for the certificate was to be made by
the home worker and the employer on a form furnished by the Deoartment of
Labor, through the State agency, stating the reasons for the worker's con-
finement to nomc , the rate of pay per unit of work, the time required to
complete a unit, the number of units given out at one time, and the time
allowed for completion of the work. The worker was required to certify
that he would personally perform the work, and the employer was required
to certify that he would Pay the same piece-work rate laid in the factory;
that all material, etc., would be furnished, delivered, and returned by
the employer and at his expense, and that no deductions would be made for
spoilage or for imperfect work.
(b) In -ddition to the reasons given in 1 (a) and (b) of the
order, the instructions- authorized issuance of a certificate if the home
worker was accustomed to this method of work before the code prohibition,
and was too old to make an adjustment to factory routine.
(*) "Instructions for Issuance of Certificates Permitting Home Work in
Special Cases," etc., Exhibit No. 29.
9845
- SI -
(c) To maint-in the code o or.ioi tions , the State Autnority was
to investigate the application to determine if the exemption was justified,
and the standards set forth were to be strictly applied. The issuing
officer could require a medical certificate signed by a puolic health
onysician as to Physical incapacity, and no able-bodied person under fifty
was to be considered too old to make the necessary adjustment to factory
work.
(d) The certificate coul^ be issued if justified, specifying
trie amount of work given to the employee during a specified period, not
to exceed that which could be completed during code hours.
(e) The certificate was to "be issued in quadruplicate, one copy
far the worker, one for the employer, one for the code autnority, and one
for che file in the issuing office.
(f) More stringent State laws or regulations affecting home-
work were not to be superseded by the provisions- under which certificates
were issued. - .
(g) T'o limitation of the number, of. incapacitated workers to
each employee was provided, but caution was to be exercised to prevent
fraud if numerous applicants were received from any one firm.
(h) A certificate could be revoked if (l) the reason for granting
same ceased to exist; (ei) the work was performed by a person other than
the employee named; (3) the employer give out work in violation of author-
ized conditions. t
I V . Summary of Administration under Order
The Division of Labor Standards, United States Department of
Labor, issued a report ' covering exemptions to nome-workers, reference to
which is made for more detailed study of this subject. (*)
A meeting of the state issuing officers was neld in Boston,
Massachusetts, in September 1334, to discuss . the problems wnich arjse in
connection with the administration of. exemptions to home-work prohibitions.
Among the problems considered were cases of mothers confined to tneir home
by the care of ymng children, aomeworkers who while not incapitated for
factory work, lived at prohibitive distances from factories. It was de-
cided that the Executive Order should not r- -ply in such cases and that
certificates should not therefore be issued.
Reports were received from the State issuing officers on the ac-
tion taken on applications for certificates. While not absolutely complete,
figures have been assembled based on thase reports. They show the follow-
ing:
Formal action was taken on 5,065 applications. Of this number
2,608 certificates were issued and certificates were refused in 2,457 cases.
(*) Report of Department of Labor on Homewurkers, Exhibit No. 30.
9845
- 32 -
The number of certificates issued is insignificant as compared tc the
total number of homeworkers formerly aotacned to these industries. Ap-
plications were' granted, in 23 States; hov,ever the number issued did not
reach substantial proportions ^xce-ot in a few states.
•Che following table shows tne mb<=r of a:o Li cations
granted and refused for the ten industries in whicn 100 or more certif-
icates were issued.
Industry Number of certifi- Number of ao'olica-
cates issued tions refused
Men's Neckwear 807 523
Merchant and custom tailoring.... 220 73
Infants' and cnildren's wear 132 131
Artificial flower and feather 160 151
Undergarment and Negligee 153 219
Men's garters, suspenders, etc... lfil 141
Pleating, stitching, and bannaz
and nand embroidery 126 447
Toy and plaything 121 150
Tag 118 43
Cotton garment 116 100
4. See lage 7 of F.eport , Exnibit No. 30.
The greatest number of applications were from concerns located in th«=
State of New York, being 5,065 applications , of which 2,608 were granted
and 2,457 rejected. Next in rrder wns that of Pennsylvania, vdth 391
aTyolic^tions, 247 of which were granted and 14^ rejected. Tnen followed
California with 270 applications , of Which 220 were granted and 50 re-
jected. (*)
B. Information on this subject is also to be found in "Policy
on Wages below the Minimum", Work Materials No. 45.
(*) For further information on Luis subject see "1I.R.A. and Industrial
Homework", by 0. W. Rosenzweig - N.F..A. Labor Studies.
9845
- 33 -
h. appzciitich trapii;g-
I* Nature of Apprentice Training
II. Origin of Order
III. Executive Order 5750-C
IV. Organization
V. Admi listra ti on
VI. Conclusion
I. Nature of Apprentice Training
The tern "apprentice" is defined as "one who is bound by indenture
or by legal agreement to serve another person for a certain time with a
viei; to learn an art or trade in consideration of instruction therein
and formerly usually of maintenance by the master." 1/
While the above is no doubt an ancient definition, it is still
generally speaking an adequate term for present day wage.
Thus, the distinction between "apprentice" and "learner" or
"beginner" becomes manifest, the former usually ap-olied to the youth
and the training is fundamentally an education jrocess, which the em-
ployer is obliga.ted to perform by the terns of the apprentice agree-
ment. 2/
"Under apprentice training young men and women are
given broad and comprehensive training in all branches
of skilled occupations.
"It is of primary imortance that everyone under-
stand that p rprentice training is fundamentally an edu-
cational process. It is first and foremost training for
a voc tion. This jrograra cannot and should not be re-
garded merely as a means for furnishing employment to
young persons.
"Apprentice training stands Gut in sharp contrast
to the employment of helpers, to the trade school course
in '-hich the student receives no experience in work under
normal real conditions, and to the minute specialization
of oper- tors." 3/
II. Origin of Order
The need for s-oecial training in trades and industries has long
been recognized. In 1917, a Federal Board for Vocational Education was
established by an act of Congress. Subsequently this work wa.s placed
1/ Webster's New International Dictionary
2/ Form of apprentice agreement issued by Federal Committee on Appren-
tice Training, Exhibit No. 31.
3/ Bulletin Ho. 1, page 2 of Federal Committee on Apprentice Training -
Exhibit Ho. 32.
9845
- 34
under the Office of Education, Interior Department and a. new division
of that office created named the Division of Vocational Training. How-
ever, during the depression the training of new workers fell to a :oint
where it "as practically negligible* "Skilled help was abundant and
employers found reduction of costs imperative; training programs inauger-
ated during prosperous times were largely abandoned," 4/
Although the National Industrial Recovery Act was approved June 16,
1933, no general provision was made for apprentice training and no action
was taken until February 1, 1934, when Ur. Leon Henderson, Director,
Research and Planning Division, appointed a committee to investigate
this problem and ma.de recommendations.
Meanwhile, many codes had been approved, most of which, failed to
include any provision for apprentice training and the few codes that
had such provisions '■•ere generally inadequate for systematic training.
On the other hand the codes "ere blocking apprentice agreements since
wages under codes --ere higher than that usually paid apprentices at the
beginning of their training -ieriod. 5/
The membership, of the Committee appointed "by Mr. Henderson, con-
sisted of sixteen authorities on the problem, representing the I iTcA, De-
partment of Labor, the Office of Education, employers, organized labor
and State Departments of Education. The Committee was composed of the
following personnel: 6/
Dr. A. J. ALtemeyer,
Chief, Labor Branch,
Compliance Division
Dr. Carl Ruasbenbush,
Technical Adviser,
Labor Advisory Board I ERA
Mrs. Clara Li. Leyer,
Director, Industrial Division
Children's Bureau
Department of Labor
Mr. Stanley I. Posner
'Economic Adviser,
Research and Planning
Division ERA
Mr. W, A. Calvin, Ass't. to
Sec'y.-Treas. , John P. Fre--.
Metal Trades Department,
American Federation of Labor.
Mr, Walter 3?. Simon,
Supervisor of Apprenticeship
Industrial Commission of
Wisconsin
Mr. Frank Cushman,
Chief, Industrial Education Service
Office of Education
Dr. William H. Stead,
Associate Director
IT. S. Employment Service
Mr. J. W, Dietz,
Supt. of Public Relations,
Western Electric Company,
Mr. F. J. Trinder,
Saco-Lowell Textile Ma.chine
Company,
4/ Page 1 of Exhibit ITo, 32
5/ Page 1 - Excerpt from Report of July 5-, 1955 by Federal Committee
on Apprentice Training - Exhibit L'o, 33
6_/ Personnel of the Committee - page 2 of report en Apprentice Training
Program under 1IRA, Exhibit ITo, 33-A,
984-5
OO -
Mr. C. R. Dooley, manager, Dr. J. C. 7/right,
Industrial Relations, Assist. U. S. Commissioner for
Sec on/- Vacuum Oil Compc ny Vocational Education
Mrs. Betty Harrley, Exo , Sect., Mr. Guy G. Via,
Advisory Eoard on Industrial Education, HcToort Nevs Shipbuilding
3oavd of Education, Her: York City Company.
Mr. John J. Seidol, Director,
Vocational Education for Lrryland,
lir. Seidel uas Executive Secretary of-
the Oomnittee.
The study of the Committee shor/sd:
"1. That the terms 'beginner', llea3cner' and
'apprentice1 had Leon used interchangeably in the codes.
"2. That most so-called 'apprentice provisions'
rrere for short 'breaking in' )eriods of from one to
nine months.
n
o.
Thrt only 4.3 per cent oi" the codes contained
orovisions for genuine aa arentice training." 7/
III. Executive Order 6750- C
As a result of this investigation and the recommendation of the
Committee the President on Juno 27, 1934, issued Executive Order IIo.
6750- C. . -
This Order provided that no jrovision in any Code or agreement mhich
had theretofore been or moulo. thereof tor be r oroved should be so construed
or applied as to violate the rales and regulations therein after promul-
gated. These rales in substance -/ore:
1. A ierson vas permitted to be employed a.s an
apprentice at less than the minimum r:age or in excess
of maximum hours of labor if p. member of an industry
should obtain from an Agency established by the Secre-
tary of Labor a certificate oermitting such employment
in conformity rath a training program offered by such
Agency, such em loyment to continue until the certifi- ■
cate should be revoked.
7j Page 2 - Excerpt of Report oi July b, 1925 - Exhibit No. 33.
See also summarization of aa jrentices and learners -orovisions
in codes by Research and Planning, Exhibit Ho. 33-E and 33-C.
9345
- 36 -
2. The term "apprentice" should mean a person of
at least 15 years of age -.'ho had entered into a. written
contract with the employer or ?n association of enroloyers
which provided for at least 2000 hours of reasonably con-
tinuous employment and his oarticipation in an aonroved
program of training as therein provided.
3. A Committee should he established oy the Secre-
tary of Labor to advise the Secretary in the exercise of
the powers therein conferred and to perform such other
functions as the Secretary night direct.' This Committee
should oe composed of one or more representatives of the
Office of Education, the national Recovery Administra-
tion and the United States Department of Labor.
The Order further authorised the Secretary of Labor to prescribe
further rules and regulations and take such other steps, as he might
deem necessary to effectuate the Order. Orders approving codes or agree-
ments inconsistent with this Order were modified accordingly, -orovided
the employer elected to become subject to the Order. The Order became
effective July 15, 1934. 8/
IV. Organization
Pursuant to the authority conferred by the Executive Order, the
Secretary of Labor appointed the following members to consitute the
Federal Commit'tec on Apprentice Training:
Mrs. Clara, LI. Beyer, Chairman, Assistant Director, Division
of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor, representing
the Department of Lahior.
Alternate - Dr. William I". Stead, Associate Director, U. S.
Enrol o-wiient Service.
Hr. Frank Cushman, Chief of Industrial Educ: tion Service,
Division of Vocational Education, Office of Education, repre-
senting the Office of Education.
Alternate - Ilr. R. V. Billington, Agent, Industrial Educa-
tion Service, Division Vocational Education, Office of
Education.
Mr. Stanley I. posner, Research and Planning Division,
National Recovery Administration, representing the National
Recover".'- Administr tion.
Alternate - Dr. Harry TJeiss, Assistant to the Executive
Secretary, National Recovery Administration. 9/
On August 14, 1934, pursuant to the authorization contained in the
Executive Order, the Secretary of labor issued "General Regulation No. 1"
8/ Executive Order No. o750-C - Exhibit No. 33-D
9/ Page 3 of the Apprentice Training Program under the IIRA Exhibit
No. 33-A.
9845
- 37 -
prescribing further rules and regulations for the ca,rr-rin~ out of the
irentice training )rograra. 10/ This Administrative Order directed
Oi imittee tc >reprje and recommend to the Secretary basic standards
for use in the training progjjram. Such standards night he varied accord-
in.; to the occupation but the training neriod should not be less than
2000 hours nor more than. 10,000 hours of reasonable continuity. Not
1 • than 144 hours rjer yeex should be devote", to grouo instructions
in general and technical subjects under the direction of rublic author-
ities "but the cenbinea hours of <-'ork and instruction should not exceed
44 hours per week. The beginning va :< rust not he less than 25$ of the
basic rate for journeymen ure /.^ilinj in the occin.- tion and locality .and
the wage must be increased -periodically during the life of. the contract,
the river? e wage for the entire a. y-, rent ice training -.eriod being not
ler:s than 50 per cent of the b; sic wage rate. The Committee was also
directed to review the activities of all state agencies and re jort to
the Secretary whether p.ivj such agency should be designated. The Committee
should also recommend to the Secretary such "other regional, local, general
or special agencies as might be necessary to supervise the training of
ap rentices. The Conhtoee should transmit to the Secretary nominations
for membership in any sue ■mcf.. m ie by (l) N.R.A. ; (2) U. S. Employ-
ment Service or emnloyraent service in the State i-;here such agency.'- was
created; (s) State Board of Vocational Training; (4) State Labor Depart-
ment; (5) Organization of En loyees in the articular state; and (6)
Organization of ■ Emnloyers in the particular state. Every such agency
should (l) a.dont as the lermount guidin ; irinciple the education and
training of apprentices; (2) adopt basic standards at lea.st equal to
those prescribed by the territory; (o) be authorised to issue certifi-
cates emitting en doymer.t of a mrentice; (4) prepare and execute a
general plan for- supervision of arorentice training which should include
the aniraisina: and a onrovin : 0" specific programs, approving contracts
of agnrenticeshi o, registering a -.--.rentlces, supervising the training,
cancelling contracts "nd issuin • diplomas.
Pursuant to the above Administrative Order the work of organizing
the st; te committee was be -.in, A series of regional meetings conducted
by Mr. William E. Patterson, Executive Secretary of the Committee on
Aporentice Training, was begun August 23, 1934, and continued until
October 9, 1954. As a result o ' th se meeting State Committees were
organized and their an ointments officially made by the Secretary of Labor.
The Federal Committee on Apprentice Training sent out to the State
Committees written ins tract ins released under date of October 20, 1934,
relating to the organization of the State Committees and of Trade Advis-
ory Committees and specifying the functions cf both and also standards
in the administration of the apprentice training program by the State
Committee. 11/ Generally these instruct ion. 3 follow Instructions No. I,
issued by the Secretary of Labor previously referred to. The instruc-
tions issued by the Committee were, however, more elaborate and specific.
The State Committees, being agencies set up pursuant to the authorization
contained in Instructions No. I, the Instructions from the Federal
10/ General Regulation Ho. 1 - Exhibit No. 33-E
11/ Instructions issued b Federal Committee - see page 4 to 8, inclu-
sive, of lie >ort of Committee - Exhibit No, 35-A.
9845
— 38.-
Committee relating to represent; tion of groups and agencies 0:1 the Sta.te
Committees followed the requirements of the .Insist arc tion 3 fron the Secre-
tary of L.-bor, e;:coT)t that the Committee's Indstructions more specifi-
cally designated NBA State Compliance Division, instead of UFA. and the
State Federation of Labor instead of an organization of employees in
the particular State. The other bodies represented --ere the same as
in the Instructions' fro:: the Secretary, i.e., Strte Department of Labor,
Strte Board for Vocational Education, EoplOyuent Service and Organiza-
tion of Employers. The functions of the St te Committee were to super-
vise the training 0:" apprentices in accordance with the standards a p n-oved
by the Secretary of Labor which included approval of apprentice contracts,
'issuing certificates, registering ^purentices, supervising the trailing
of apprentices, cooperating vita educational authorities in the school
program, cancelling contracts mii issuing diplomas. The instructions also
urged but did not require the establishment of Tr- de Advisory Committee
for each trade to be composed of epresenativos of employees and employers J
Such Committees • ould ret in an advisory capacity on such matters as the
determination of a uniform contract form, the prevailing average fate for
journeymen, cooperation with school authorities, the selection of appren-
tices,- matters of grievonce either of the apprentice or the employer and
other matters.
Bu Hay IS, 1935, forth- three state committees and forty-one plans
had 'oeea a proved by the Secretary of Labor. The ground work of the
organizations, plans and policies was completed.
The Federal Committee on Ap irentlce Trainin : did net cease to function
upon the invaJ.ida.tion of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Executive
Order 6750-0, as well a.s the agencies created thereunder, were extended
by Exeuctive Order 7Q7S, issued June 15, 1935. Sanction was further given ]
this Committee by Executive .Order No. 7086, creating the national Youth
Administration one of the objectives of which va.s the employment 'nd ap-
prentice training of the youths of the nation. 12/ The national Youth
Administration has designated the Committee as the agency for carrying
on the apprentice phase of its program and a representation of the "national
Youth Organization ha.s been appointed to tlie Federal Committee. In Decem-
ber, 1935, this Committee consisted of the following personnel: 13/
Mrs. Clara i'. Beyer, (Chairman)
Assistant Director, Division of Labor Standards,
U. S. Department of Labor,
Alternate - Dr. Uilliam H. Stead, Associate Director,
U. S. Employment Service.
Dr. Frank Cushman, Chief of Industrial Education
Service, Division Vocation Education, Office of Education,
Alternate - Mr. R. V. Gill in 'ton, Agent, Industrial
Bducati n Service, Division Vocational Education,
Office of Education. .
12/ Page 1, Bulletin lTo. 2 of Federal Committee on Apprentice
Training - Exhibit 33-F
13/ Page 4, Bulletin No. 2 of Federal Committee on Apprentice Training -
Exhibit 35-F-.
9845
- 39 -
Mr. C. R. Dooley, Manager of Industrial Rel; tions,
Se cony- Vacuum Oil Company, Inc.
Mr. John P. Troy, President o:7 the Metal Trades
Department, American Federation of Labor.
Dr. Mary H. S. Mayes, Director of Guidance and
Placement, national Y oil th Administration*
Dr. L. C. Marshall, Director, Division of Review,
ILIA, Alternate - Dr. Harry Weiss, Chief,
Code Authority Administration Unit, jRA.
Mr. Willi.' n. r. Patterson, Executive Secretar;r.
VI. Administration
TTnile the organization had '.eon largely completed the actual number
of apprenticeship contracts effected at the time of invalidation of codes
vt s not great. A report of contracts classified by trades and industries
anc by states is contained in the Committees' Renort. (Exhibit Ho. 33-A.)
This re'oort shoes' that on June 16, 1935, the number of apprentices under
contract ■■■■■ s 355; number of employees 140; number of occupations 52.
The occupations aont'aini'ng the largest number of apprentices <7ere that of
Plumber, in nhi'ch there --ere 6.2 a-nrentiees; Machinist, containing 52;
Fibre Weaver 42 , and T .>ol Maker 50. ■ The states containing the largest
number of apprentices in the order n; led ^ere Wisconsin, 220; Texas, 50
and Michigan, 44.
VI • Conclusion
The method of supervision by the Federal Government of an r entice
trainings differs in severrl res^ecty from that enloyod in the regula-
tion of industry through the LIRA, The following -nil be noted:
1. iiRA functioned ->urely as r federal ^ ;eucy. The ap )ren-
tice training "orogram, ho-rever, nroceeded norc nearly up on state lines.
The active administration of r:o ^rentico training is b" the State Com-
mittee subject to the General Supervision of the Federal Committee. An
officer of th" State Government (r representative of the State Labor
Department) is a member of the State Committee. The State of Wisconsin
has its omn c i irentice traini lg Ian, -jhich is administered by a State
Commission. In dealing 'dth this situation, the Federal Committee simply
designated this strte r :ency rs the State Committee. In fret, the ad~
rainistr tion of Federal Training has proceeded uoon the idea of a cool-
er? tive movement "ith the states rather than uoon the assumption of
exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Government.
2. The Administration of national Industrial Recovery Act
Trrs centralized Largely in Washington, D. C. ; the Administration of
apprentice training ,T--'S localized in the are^s of operation. This is
closely "related to the previous observation. Hovrever, the first refers
9845
- 40 -
to questions of conflict of Federal pud State Sovereignties whereas this
suggests the relative differences' in centralized a:u'...decentralized
authority* Of course, even the apprentice training program ^ps not en-
tirely decentralized as general supervision was reserved, in the Com-
mittee.
3. In the a.dministr ■■tion of apprentice training there has
"been considerably less --.over and influence by industry than under uBAm
One of the priae principles of BRA, was self-government of indus-
try; hence, organization by the individual industries regardless of local-
ity and the election of code authorities. TThile final r-ction in ::ost
matters was reserved in 1IRA, actually the recomnenda tion of the code
authorities prevailed unless such recommendations contravened some basic
policy. For example, in orders ;ranting or denying exemptions the
recommendations of the code authorities -ore followed in :robably not
less than ninety (90) oer cent of such orders. 14/ Industry is also re-
presentee, in the administration of aoorentice training, but no to the
same extent. On the Federal Comuittee there is one represent,' tive of
industry, four renrssentatives of agencies of the Federal Government
and one of organized labor. Proportionate representation on the State
Committee is about the same, therrj being throe representatives of the
national Government, one of the St- te Labor Department, one of organized
labor and one of industry. It will further be noted that the renresen-
t tion of industry and labor is equal. As a resnlt of the above set-uo,
there -is less -^o^er in any particular interest or. class and stronger
governmental control.
Hovever, it should be recognized that the organization and admin-
istrati n of the Federal Ao^rentice Training program is not in all res-
pects comparable to the vork -oerformed by irj.. The former deals with
a. single problem, the latter with a vast and com ilex variety of nroblens.
Nevertheless, it is believed a study of some of the features above re-
ferred to as veil as a study of the administration of exemptions to
home^orker and handicapped '-orke"':? nay develop valuable suggestions in
the ^reparation of any future federal legislation to regulate industry,
should such future legislation be considered. 14a/
There is still an almost limitless field for the training of emolo^ec
in industrial occupations. A large percentage of exemptions vere based
unon the ground that skilled workers were not available, especially ex-
emptions to meruit' employees to vork in excess of the maximum hours. Pre-
emptions fror maximum hour provisions constitute^ more than 50 per cent
of the total exemptions. 15/ The fact that employers generally vere
14/ All exemptions vere reviewed by the Revie • Division - Several of
the -riters of this History vere in the Lxejiption Unit.
14a/ See also "State Recovery Legislation in Aid of .Federal Recovery
. Le jisla.tion" Legal Studies.
15/ For authority for the above statements, see note 14. This Unit
has also compiled a. digest of Orders granting aid denying exemp-
tions classified by grounds.
9845
~ 41
■ ill in • to ory more then the normal rate of pay for overtime ^ould
indicate sine rity of their statements in this respect rnd thr.t
it '■'-■ not Ln co.ct >rofi table to hire the unea loyed labor that was
available. The situation existed in innumerrble instances "here in
a community in which then as lrrge unemployment there wns also acute
shortage of available skilled labor* This could be largely alleviated
the extensive program of aoprentice training.
Information on this subject ia also to be found in "Policy on
7- ;es below the Minimum", TTork Materials No. 45.
9845
- 42 -
I. SSCLTEKED WORKSHOPS
I. Origin of Exemption
II. Administrative Orders
III. C-nclusion
I. Origin of Exemption
Sheltered workshops are chari table institutions which, provide em-
ployment to handicapped persons* Handicappec persons am those unable
to secure employment in. business occause "f physical, mental or other
disabilities. There are some three hundred of these institutions in
the United States. It was s"oon realised that these institutions could
not comply with many of the code provisions. On the other hand there
was considerable objection from industry because ;f the competition
from such institutions.
On February 12, 1934, a commission was appointed by Hugh S. John-
son, the .Hxministrator of SUA, for the purpose of investigating the
problem of sheltered workshops an t aalce rec~mr.endar.i ons for neces-
sary acti-n. The commission was ;aade up of the following:
Dr. Fredericr Y«'o odward, University of Chicago
Mr. Oscar II. Sullivan, national Rehabilitation
association, St. Paul, Minnesota
Ir. Stanley P. Davis, Charity Organize/:! n :- cioty,
Tew Y.rlr City.
II. Administrative Orders _
As a result of the efforts of the Commissi :n, Administrative Order
No. X-8, dated March 3, 1534, was issoied which created a general exemp-
tion to? all sheltered v/orkshops up a certain conditions. This Order
defined shelterec. w rkshops t: be charitable institutions or activities
thereof c oacaucted not for profit, but for tap. purp se >f providing re-
munerative employment for physically, mentally and - cially handica;
workers and -orovided that any shelterec w rkshop t be cut it led to the
exemption should sign a pledge o the following effect:
1. hot t: empl y dnors u " :r r-ixteen /'ears of age
except such as arc the.- f r instructional pur-
poses as approved by i nal Committee sub-
sequently pr vided for;
.?. Hot to engage in destructive price-cutting or
any ^ther unfair method of competition;
3. !T~t t wilfully hamper r retard the purposes
f Title I f the LTpti-nal Industrial P.ecovcry
Act ;
4. To cooperate so far as possible with the N§.ti nal
Recovery Ataninistrat i .n; and
1 See Exhibit No. 34
„ 43 -
5. To carry out so far as possible the intent and
spirit of the National Industrial Recovery Act.
A ministrative )rder ".To. X-282 which was signed H y 11, 1934, ^
appointed the National Sheltered Workshop Committee and provided for
the design and use of i ropriate insignia and specified the form
of pledge to be signed i '■ tional Sheltered Workshops and further
required the said Committee to designate the several geographical
;■ Ions of the United States which were referred to in Administrative
Order ho. X-9. The personnel of the Committee appointed under this
Order was:
Mr. Oscar N. Sullivan, President, National Rehabilitation
Association, St. Paul, Minnesota.
LIr. Oliver A. Friedman, Milwaukee Good Will Industries,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Mr. Peter J. Salmon, Secretary, Brooklyn Industrial Home
for the Blind, Brooklyn.-, New York
Mr. Edward Kochhauser, President, Altro Workshops,
The Bronx, New York City
Mr. J hn N. Smith, Jr., Director, Institute for the Crippled
and Disabled, hew York City
Rev. Join: 0' Grady, / tional Conference of Catholic Charities,
Washington, D. C.
Administrative Order ho. X-59 was issued July 2, 1934, and pre-
scribed rules and regulations for the issuance of labels to sheltered
workshops anc the use tnereof. This Order was amended by Administrative
Order ho. X-81 which supplemented a . of the provisions of Crder No. X-59.
Administrative Order No. X-814. provided that the committee should
issue labels bearing the NBA insignia to sheltered workshops and collect
the actual and reasonable cost thereof, to pass on the qualifications
of applicants, find to determine whether or not they came within the scope
of the sheltered workshop exemption, subject to the disapproval of the
Administrator, and in general provided for the supervision of sheltered
workshop exemptions as provided for in the Act.
III. Conclusion
A complete history of Sheltered Workshops has been written by hiss
Effie Lee Moore, Executive Assistant of the Public Agencies Division,
and also Executive Secretary of the National Sheltered Workshop Committee,
It is therefore unnecessary to treat here the administration of the com-
mittee. Generally it may be stated, however, that the conflict between
industry and sheltered workshops was largely eliminated and general work-
ing conditions within the sheltered workshops were greatly improved.0
3
4
See Exhibit ho. 35
See Exhibit ho. 36
See Exhibit lb. 37
See also, "Sheltered Workshops under N.R.A.," by y. J. Clarke, and
Leo. G . Cyr , Admi n i s t rs t i an S t ud i e s
~- 44 -■•
J. EXdi.PTIQtf TO ElfJTP.S PIT GOVEEEIdd'T CCETd^CES
I. Certificate of Compliance Eequired
of Bidders
II. Origin of Exemption to bidders on
Government Contracts
III. Administrative Order X-48
IV. Executive Order No. 6767
V. Interpre cation of Executive
Order !To. 6767
VI. Conclusion
I. Certificate of Compliance dequi,??d of Bidders
By Executive Order ;To. 66461 datedParch 14, 1934, it was pro-
vided that all invitations made on behalf of the United States Govern-
ment to Didders should provide that no "bid should be considered unless
the bidders certified that he -as complying with' the code to which he
was subject or if the bidder was not subject to a code that he would
comply with the President's Ecepployment ^reenent. It was further
provided that all government contracts should contain a provision re-
quiring such compliance but that the Administrator v:a.s authorized to
make exceptions in specific cases.
I I • . Origin, of Exemption to Bidders on Government Contracts
One of the effepts. of code operation was that in numerous
cases competing bids were identical in -"rice though in most instances
the Government was by law required to contract with the lowest bidder.
This was claiired to' have resulted from -the price filing pro-
visions of 'the codes and the further requirement of a certificate of
compliance under Executive Ordci- No. 6646.
Assuming that variations existed between prices filed by the
members of a particular industry, it is not entirely clear how such
price filing provisions resulted in identical bids although necessarily
tiie bidders freedom of action was restricted to the extent that he could
not bid below his own price list. A further study of the effect of
price filing provisions', ^specially with respect to identical bids
should produce valuable information. It has often been asserted that
such price filing provisions tended to create a uniform price structure.
The submission of identical bids would seem to substantiate this view.
This opinion is further supported by a Government publication
entitled, "P.egulations Governing Bids idled to Offer Government Agen-
cies Prices 15$ 3elow Published Quotations", being the subject matter
of the Executive and Administrative Orders hereinafter referred to.
The portion of the publication applicable is the following:
"To take care of cases in which the full
15 per cent variation may cause damage to an
Executive Order ho. 6646, Exhibit 'do. 38
9845 •
- 45 -
industry's jrice strixcture, the order rovides
that if complaint is filed, the Administrator
for In ustrial Recov -y ma; after due investiga-
tion an ig of the facts reduce the allow-
able percentage, "but in no crse to less than 5
per cent below the posted prices."
III. Administrative Drder X-48
On June 12, 1954, Administrative Order X-48 was issued, which
exempted industry members who should ther ifter bid on government con-
tracts, from compliance with code ] r -visions which prohibited any of
the following practices, anr1. such members , notwithstanding such pro-
hibitions, could: (a) Quote prices anc terms to such agencies as favor-
able as bhose permitted to commercial buyers for like quantities; (b)
Quote definite "rices or terms, bot subject to adjustment relating to
increased costs, for definite quantities and for definite periods not
to exceed three months (unless code provided longer period); (c) Same
as (b) except for in Lte quantities for definite periods not to
exceed sip: months; (c ) Quote prices and terms to apply to contracts to
become effective not more th days ' the opening bid- date, (e)
Quote prices f.o.b. point of origin and/or destination. The order
contained a proviso that it sho Id not permit deviation from or abandon-
ment of code, open price mi • cost protecti >'. jrovisions.
IV. Executive Order H . 6767
Executive Order ho. 6646 was modified by Executive Order ho.
6757, approved June 29, 1934, which authorized any person submitting
a bid to the government, at prices which, under an approved code,
should have been filed with the c rity prior to their quotation,
to quote a price not more than 15 pe;r cent be Low his filed price, which
action would be deemei equate compliance with the Code require-
ments, if, after the bids were opened, each bicder who quoted below his
filed price, immediately filed a copy of his bid with the code author-
ity or designated a;_ency. If complaint was made to the Administrator,
and he found, after investigation, that the tolerance of 15 noer cent
resulted in destructive price cutting, he "/as authorized to issue an
administrative order reducing the tolerance to an extent necessary to
prevent price cutting, but in no event to a tolerance of less than 5
per cent. The Achnini street or '.".'as directed to cause a study to be made
of the effects of the Order upon standards of fair competition in^sales
to public and private customers, anc to report within six months.0
V . Interpretation of Executive Order ho. 6767
On July 14, 195-"-, Legal Memorandum ho. 49 was sent by Mr.
Black-. 'ell Smith to the Legal Staff, interpreting Executive Order ho.
6767, so far as the '-rice tolerance exemption is concerned, substanti-
ally as follows:
2
Administrative Order X-48, Exhibit do. 39
"^Executive Order ho. 3757, Exhibit ho. 40.
9845
- 46 -
(a) The general terms of the Order permit of no
exceptions and bids 15 per cent below filed nrices
could be Made to government agencies without code
violation even though resulting in prices below cost
or below stated minimum prices, provided, that the
Trice filed, from which tolerance was allowed, was a
valid price under the code provisions. (b) Any legal
interpretation of the clause which required that a covy
of each tolerance bid to be filed with the Code Author-
ity or agency, should be based upon its wording, which
was believed not to justify an interpretation that
filing such a copy constituted filing a revised price
which then became available as such, to all purchasers,
(c) If the Administrator found that the 15 per cent
tolerance was resulting in destructive price cutting,
he co\ild reduce sa ie to prevent such result, but the
tolerance reduction could not exceed 10 per cent.
VI. Conclusion
MRA Office i'anual, Part III, Section 4600, stated that Executive
Order l!o. 6767 "lias not been very extensively applied, consequently the
problems now involved in Government Contracts relate almost exclusively
to ITo. 664-6, on which the following sections are based."
Since Executive Order Ho. 6757 operated without the necessity of
further specific orders the 1TRA would in all probability have no offi-
cial record of the extent to which the privilege conferred by this
order was availed of. However-, as members bidding nelow their filed
prices were required to submit such price quotations to code author-
ities or other confidential agencies the code authorities should have
this information. Further study from this source might be of value.
3_
Lxecutive Order No. 6767, Exhibit Ho. 40
uSee also "Relationship of 17. R. A. to Government Contracts and Contracts
Involving the Use of G overnment Funds," by Jordan D. Hill, A-h/iinis-
tration Studies; Chapter V of '"Agreements Under Section 4(a) and 7(b)
of H.I.R.A.", by C. A. C-iblin, Administration Studies.
9845
E. ASSESS]
I.
Origin of Order
II.
The Order
III.
Ope rati oil gind Effect
IV.
Conclusion
- 47 -
::; pjioi
I. Origin of Order
Pri^r to Executive Order ITo. 6678, contributions to code adminis—
tration'.;s expenses had "been on - voluntary basis, under a standard pro-
vision which was c > .tained in • ved code? and provided that members
were to he entitled to participate in and share the benefits of the
activities of the Cx.e Authority, and p; rticipate in the selection of
the members thereof by assenting to and complying with Code require-
ments an sustaining their re . u ble share of administration expense,
same to be determined by the Code Authority, subject to review by the
Administrator, on the basis of volume of business, or other equitable
factors. Under such a provision contribution to the expenses could not
be legally enforced.
Tn memorandum from Laurence A. Kn i > , Review "Division Counsel, to
E. II, Jeffrey, dated June S, 1934x > as to the purposes and effect of
Executive Order ho. 6673, a i ministrative Order X-36, it was stated
that the President issued the executive order to meet the vociferously
expressed desires of many industries to make failure to pay .assessments
for expenses of code administration a violation of the code.
_ p
?ne Executive Order war. approved on April 14, 1934.
I I . The Order
The essential part of the order was as follows:
It was ordered "that the following clause cr any
appropriate modification thereof shall "cecome
effective as a wart of any code of fair competi-
tion approved -under said Title (Title I of.
rational Industrial Recovery Act of Juie 16,
1933), upon application therefor (1) pursuant
to the provisions of the Code relating to amend-
ments thereto or (2) by one or more trade or
industrial associations or groups truly repre-
sentative of the trade or industry or subdivision
thereof covered by the Code, if the Administrator
for Industrial Recovery shall find that approval by
him. of sucn clauses is necessary in order. to ef-
fectuate the policy of Title I of said Act:
"1, It being found necessary, in order to
Exhibit ho. 41.
Executive Order ITo. 6678, Office Manual, Part V, V-C-29, Exhibit 42.
9845
- 46 -
support the administration of this code and to
maintain the standards of fair competition
established by this Code and to effectuate the.
policy of the Act, the Code Authority is au-i
thorized, subject to the approval of the Ad-
ministrator:
" (a) To incur reasonable obligations
as are necessary and proper for the foregoing -
purposes and to meet such obligations out of
funds which may be raised as hereinafter pro-
vided and which shall be held in trust for the
purposes of the Code;
"(b) To submit to the Administrator for
his approval, subject to such notice and opportunity
to be heard as he may deem necessary, (l) an itemized
budget of its estimated expenses for the foregoing
purposes, and (2) an equitable basis upon which the
funds necessary to support such budget shall be com-.
tributed by the members of the Industry;
"(c) After such budget and "oasis of contri-
bution have been approved by the Administrator,
to determine and seciu-e equitable contribution
as above set forth by all such members of the in-
dustry, a '.d to that end, if necessary, to institute
legal proceedings therefor in its own name,
"2 'Only members of the Industry complying with the Code
and contributing to the expenses of its administration
as provided in Section 1 hereof shall be entitled to
participate in the selection of the members of the Code
Authority or to receive the benefit of its voluntary
activities or to make use of any emblem or indignia of
the national Recovery Administration."
III. Operation and Sffect
On April 14, 1934, Administrative Order X-203 was issued, which
provided for the collection of expenses of code administration, non-
payment of which constituted a violation of the code only if an item-
ized budget had been approved, and the code authority certified that
the member had' been given notice of the approved basis of contribution,
that non-payment within 30 days after such notice was a code violation,
that the member had a right to protest, but had failed to pay or file a
protest. It was further provided that no members should, be in violation
of the code for failure to contribute to any industry other than th
which embraced his principal line of business, but any code authority
could, show caiise to NBA why a member subject to its code, should con-
tribute to the expenses of same, in addition to a contribution by him
to another code or codes.
3* ' ■•••..
""Administrative Order X-20, Office Manual, Part V, V-D-ll Hxhibit 43.
9C45
r- 49 -
A
On May 26, Administrative- order X-36~, was issued, supplementing the
Executive Order and rescinding' Administrative Order X-20. it prescribed
rules, regulations and procedure governing tne collection of contribu-
tions, and provided as follows: -
"Fending determinations by IT.H.A. with respect to specific Codes
upon cause shown by a Code Authority or otherwise, every member
of a trade or industry is hereby exempted from any obligation
to contribute to the expenses of administration of any Code or
Codes other than the Code for the trade or industry which em-
traces his principal lino of business, provided that he shall
submit such information and comply with such regulations with
respect to such exemption as N.R.A. nay require or prescribe."
It was not a policy requirement that a code contain the mandatory
assessment provisions contemplated by administrative Order X-36, but
unless the requirements of tne Order wore met, contributions of a
compulsory nature could not be collected (office Manual II - 1570).
Subsequent administrative orders of interpretations, and granting
exemptions pursuant to the order were as follows:
r
Administrative order Ho. X-56-1, dated October 11, 1934,
held that an establishment which operated under more than one
divisional or sub-ui visional code, each having en approved
budget, was exempted ~by paragraph III of Administrative Order
X-36 from contributing to other than the division or sub-division
which constituted its principal line of business. (See Review
Division precedent Ho. 63, paragraph III).
Administrative Order K-35-2, dated liarch 30, 1935 held that the
exemption conferred by X-36, did not extend to the purchase of labels,
and all members of the industry were obligated to pay for labels at
the approved rates. .(See Review Division precedent No. .63, Para-
graph III).
Administrative Order X-78. was issued August 21, 1934, providing
that, pending further order clarifying the problem- of multiple assess-
ments in the Distributing Trades, no order of termination of exemption
under. X-36 should -be construed to:
(1) Require any member to contribute to any code covering
wholesale distribution by him, except the code covering his
principal line of wholesale distribution, provided, however,
the termination should apply to any of his business other
than wholesaling.
(2) (Consists of a similar provision as applied to Retail
Trade members).
In construing (l) above, the Legal Division, on February 21, 1935,
held that a wholesaler was required to pay the code Authority for his >
principal line of business only on the basis of business done under that
one code, and was not required to pay such principal line wholesaling
code authority on the basis of his entire wholesaling business (See
Review Division precedent Ho. 63, Paragraph IV).
(4) Administrative Order X-36, Office Manual, Part V, V-D-21, Exhibit 44,
9S45
- 50 -
Administrative Order X-122, approved December 14, 1934, provided
that because of conflict of the Graphic Arts Industries Code with certain
other codes, any establishment operating under one or more codes other
than the Graphic Arts Industries Code, which did not sell printed matter
in competition with producers under that Code, and which employed on
graphic arts processes not more than nine mechanical employees was ex-
empt from the provisions of said code governing the collection of assess-
ments for code administration expenses. This order was rescinded by
Administrative Order X-133, approved January 22, 1935, but the exemption
was substantially re-adopted.
Administrative Order X-131, approved January 7, 1935, established
a Si-gle Assessment principle for members engaged in retail distribution.
It terminated exemptions granted by X-36 or X-73, effective January 1,
1935, which applied to the retail business of retail establishments,
after which, a retail establishment, to the extent it engaged in retail
distribution, was required to pay a single assessment upon its total
retail business to the expense of its principal line code (l) at the
rate of assessment approved for that code, or (2) upon its principal
line at the rate approved for that code, and upon each minor line at
the rate approved for each minor line code. If contribution was made to
the expense of another code, based upon the business covered by that
code, credit and deduction therefor was to be taken in computing payment
to the principal line code. (See Review Division precedent No. 63,
Paragraph V).
Administrative Order X-139, approved April 10, 1335, provided that
applications for approval of budgets and bases of contribution should
contain recommendations to eliminate (l) nuisance contributions and
(2) for exemptions designed to avoid inequitable contributions or
articles which were not marketed per se.' (See Review Division
precedent No. 63, paragraph VII ).
Administrative Order X-140, approved April 11, 1935, granted a
qualified exemption of members engaged in a Principal Line Retail by
providing that separate establishments whose principal line measured
by dollar volume, was retail distribution, were exempted from contri-
bution to any minor line non-retail code governing a portion of the
business, provided (l) non-retail business did not require full time
services of 2 or more employees, and (2) the obligations of such es-
tablishments to affix labels, and pay the approved label rates, was
not affected. (See Review Division precedent No. 64, Paragraph Vl).
IV. Conclusion
This problem is one of the results of multiple coverage. A concern
even though with respect to its own organization an intergrated unit
might be subject to several codes. Each code may be totally different
with respect to contributions to the code authorities. One code may
contain a mandatory provision for assessment; another code may contain
a provision for voluntary contributions. The bases of assessment or
contribution differed. For example, one code would be based upon dollar
volume of business, another upon production volume, by dollar volume of
payroll, or by the number of employees and many other different bases of
assessment. Finally, the rate of assessment varied with the individual
9845
~ 51 -
industry. TJhen the basis of assessment differed, it was difficult to
ascertain whether or not a particular member ?as paying double assess-
ment or less thai his proportionate share.
The difficulties were in all probability not anticipated in the
early days of code formulations and these complications were met in
individual cases as they arose during the course of administration.
The fact that policy changed from time to time as embodied in the nu-
merous orders on the subject indicates that the difficulties were not
entirely solved. For example, under Administrative Order X-36 a concern
with 51 per cent of its business in one code and 49 per cent in another
might be exempted from assessment on the 49 per cent of its business.
The result was the flood of orders from a great number of industries
terminating this exemption.
7ith the experience of the past no doubt some broad policy in-
itiated at the beginning of the code making could be evolved. This
would involve as far as possible uniformity in the assessment pro-
visions of each code. If mandatory provisions are legal then all codes
might contain a similar mandatory provision.
The same uniform policy could be continued in the organization and
administration of the code authorities in respect to assessments. Thus,
a uniform ba.ses of assessments could be adopted, For example, assess-
ments might be based upon the dollar volume of business. This would
eliminate many of the complications and uncertainties. There will still,
however, be the question of differences in rates of ' assessments. Con-
sidered as a tax, there is considerable merit in the position that the
rate be uniform in all industries. Cn the other hand this is opposed to
tiie idea of organization by individual industries and the belief that
each industry should be responsible for financing its own administration.
Whether the latter was adopted or not, it would seem well that a member
receive a single questionnaire and a single notice of assessment, and
that the apportionment of that assessment be worked out through a clear-
ing house or a system of credits of the code authorities involved. As
a natter of fact this principle was adopted in Administrative Order
X-131 with respect to establishments engc.ged in Retail Ilstribution.
5 See also Part D, entitled "Code Authority Finances", by
H. P. Vose, of "Code Authorities and Their part in the
Administration of the N.I. 3. A.", F.R.A. Administration
Studies.
9845
~ 52 ~
L.
I. Administr .tive Order Ho. X-SO
II. Tcrritori 1 Cooperation Agreement
III. Exemption from M-.inl nd Code
IV. Conclusion
I. Administr tive Order II o . X-60
Administrative Order ilo. X-60, d tec. Febru ry 8, 1934, exempted _t?.:d;.s
-nd industries in the territories of Puerto Rico ".ntV H:v;-ii from codes: '
theretofore Approved until September 1, 1934, nnd fron codes there. -.fter
approved for -„ period of six we ks following the d .tcs of such pprovlsi
It wis further provided, however, th t the order should not ffect ' ny
exemption or exception of ray industry or person in such territories nd
thr.t the Order sho Id not .ffect -.ny code for .tr.de or industry in
Puerto Rico or H-.r.ii (presum hi me ni':g 1'oc 1 cod s >r tr des nd in-'
dustrics peculi r to such territories.). At ,ny ti , "before the cxpir-.tian
of the exemption thereby gr ntot! qualified ■ ssoci ti n.s in cith.-r'-of the
territories could -p^ly for ~. modific tion of -. code or the p rovl of
sep-.r-.te code. Provision w-.-s --.1st .:: -!:c for'' l-'hols. ('*)
II. Tcrritori .1 Coopeu' tion Agr: mont
By Administr tive Order ho. X-80, d-vtod August ??, 1934, the Ad-
ministr tor pproved'th| form of the Torritori-.l Cooper tion Agreement
for Puerto Rico, R-.w.ii -nd Ah .sk which w-.s rttrchod thereto. (**)
The Agreement provided th t it would r;.m..n in effect until ( )
sep r to code ir.d "been p; roved; ("b ) the deputy for the territory
ordered its termination'; (c) not l-.ter th n June 15, 1935. Hie Agreement
further included provisions rcl- ting to m~ximum r i , d it ion .1 compens -
tion for overtime, exemption from maximum hours in codes of emergency n-,in-
t a nee- nd r:;}- ir work, minimum w cs, oquit bio \djustra :i.t , child 1 .dor,
lo rncrs m pprenticcs, h ndic rued workers, collective b rg-.ining nd
provisions which prohibited monopolies nd oy >rcssion of sm.ll entcrr>ris..s .
III. Exempt i n from V. ir.l~.nd Code _s
A Ki'-.inl-.nd code w~s one th t included not only Continent 1 Unite".
St tes "but H'.T'ii, Puerto Rico -.nd Al~,s2r .s rel! . A coco w-.s construed s
- rrr.inl.nd code if its terms, ( ) included no st tement s to the extent of
its ■pplic-tion, or, (b) did not define the re of its ipplicvtion to c xclude
•ny or -.11 of the territories nd pos: Lo: s. (***)
■(*) Administrr.tivc Order Ilo. X-60, Exhibit Ho. 45.
(**) Administr tive Order No. X-SO ".nd Tcrritori l:Cobpcr tion
Agreement, Exhibit ho. 46,
(***) See N.R.A. Office M~nu~l 11-40 0-4009.
9845
Office I 'emorandu'i Ho. 356, i May 3, 1934, authorized the De-
puty Administrator for "C.-io lerritfr.y of Alaska, subject to the suoer-
vision of and review by the rational Industrial Recover-/- Board, to grant
or den-- exemptions from code vu-ovisions to the extent that a code ap-
plied to transaction within that territory, except that such authorisa-
tion was not to apply to the follcming codes:
Canning Industry-
Canned Salnon Industry
Lumber and Timber Products Industry
Fishery Industry (including supplementary C^des (*)
Office jiemorandum Eo = 357, (*^) issued iiay 3, 1935, provided that
certain provisions, i.e., Part III, Section 3231 and 3234.2 should not
apply to the Deputy for Alaska in the exercise of the authority given
him under Office Memorandum Ho. 356.
IV. Conclusion
This topic includes only the administrative Order granting an ex-
emption from mainland codes in the territories and the related Office
Memoranda on the subject,, Ho attempt is made to treat the administration
of codes in these territories. Special studies and histories have been
prepared and written covering this subject, both generally and with re-
ference to particular trades and industries. (***)
(*) Office hemoranduE Ho. 356, Exhibit Ho. 47.
(**J Office Memorandum 357, Exhibit Ho. 38.
(***) Generally. "The Coda Making Program of H.H.A. in Territories"
by Fu J. Duff icy, Administration Studies. "Chapter
IV of ''Agreements under Section 4(a) and 7(b) of
I". I. R. A.", by C. A. Giblin, Administration Studies.
Alaska: - History of HRA Administration in the Territory of
Alaska, by M. W. Stead.
Puerto Rico: Report entitled "High Spots of IRA in Puerto Rico"
by Boaz Long. See also the following code histories
applicable solely to Puerto Rico: Baking, Motion
Picture, and Banking _y Frederick Sartorious; Men's
Clothing by Ualter M. Barrow; Cigar and Tobacco,
and Survey of Heedle-work Homeworkers by J. P. S.
Minnet; and the Study of Heedle-work in Puerto Rico
by J. P. S. Minnet and Boaz Long.
Hawai i : - The following histories and studies by Frederick
Simpick: "A Surve3f of Labor Conditions in the
Principal Industries of the Territory of Hawaii";
"High Spot Memorandum11 of ' HRA in Hawaii; "History
of Graphic Arts in Hawaii and Retail Trade in
Hawaii. "
J845#
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; the 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^ !§, 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 worthy
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 >.dta (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 cf
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
Cjde 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
Sheltared Workshops Under NRA
Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Program
i2£Sl 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 qaalifications 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 Supply Industry
Candy Manufacturing Industry Glass Container 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 carec 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—6 .
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