Skip to main content

Full text of "Work materials ..."

See other formats


3 9999 06317 517 6 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF REVIEW 



i:. n. A. K E c II D 3 ::. i; g.2 i o ;i 

JJ E P A R T M E U T OP CO 



i 



■HISTORY OF THE COMPLIANCE DIVISION 
By 

W. M. Galvin 
J. J. Reinstein 
D. Y. Campbell 



WORK MATERIALS NO. 85 



I 



MARCH, 1936 



4 
I 



OFFICE OF NATI01IA.L ESCOYSEY ADI^IINISTHaTION 
DIVISION OF REVIEW 



HISTORY OF THE COfffLIANGE DIVISION 

W. M. Galvin 
J. J. Reinstein 
D. Y. Campbell 



MARCH, 1936 



9861 



FOHEWORD 



This "History of the Compliance Division" was iDrepared ty Mesrs. 
W. M. Galvin, J. J. Reinstein, and D. Y. Campbell of that Division. 
It descrites the development and operation of the Compliance Division 
of NRA. from its inception to the time of the Schechter decision on 
May 27, 1935 when it ceased compliance activities and took the more 
appropriate name of Field Division while its personnel carried out 
assignments given by the Division of Review, the Robert Committee, 
and the Coordinator for Industrial Cooperation. 

The outline for the History of the Compliance Division was de- 
veloped in cooperation with the Division of Review by Mr. J. J. Rein- 
stein, formerly Chief, Coordinating Branch. The parts dealing with 
field activities were developed by or under the direction of Mr. D. Y. 
Campbell, formerly of the Missouri State office. The chapter on the 
National Compliance Board and its successors and the Compliance Div- 
ision Headquarters was -orepared by Mr. William M. Galvin, formerly 
Chief, Analysis Branch. Statistical material was prepared under the 
supervision of Miss Mar.jorie Linfield. 

The temptation to make special studies of particular problems 
has been resisted, partly to avoid duplicating studies made else- 
where in the Division of Review, and partly because of limitations 
of personnel. 

The ommissions in the present account are both numerous and 
significant. Perhaps the main omraission is the failure to discuss 
the compliance procedurp of Code Authorities and their relation to 
the Compliance Division. Considerable material on this subject is 
in the files of the Field Division. The effect that participation 
by the Compliance Division in code making might have had on the en- 
forceability of code provisions is another wide field that is not 
covered, as is also the problem of the difficulties experienced by 
the Compliance Division in obtaining interpretations and decisions 
involving overlapping definitions of industries. The various liaison 
activities with other governmental agencies are also omitted. The 
problems arising from removal of insignia have been touched only 
briefly. There are wide implications in this subject which ought 
to be developed if insignia are to be considered in connection with 
any future industrial statute of broad import. 

The findings in the report are individual findings, not official 
statements. 

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 24, 1936 



9861 



-1- 



COIITEIITS 

PAitT I - INTHODUCTION Page 

Chapter I. The Nature of the Compliance probleia 1 

Sec. 1. Background of tne passage of the NIEA 1 

Sec. 2. Scope of compliance work 1 

Chapter II. Manner of Approach 5 

Sec. 1. Tne underlying theories of the compliance system .... 5 

Sec. 2. The establishment of an administretive orocedure .... 8 

PART II - GOVERFwiENTAL ORGAlvIZATION ASH PROCEDURE 

Chapter III. The Administrative Settlement of Code Violations .... 11 

Sec. 1. The need for correcting violations by adminis- 
trative measures 11 

Sec. 2. Source of authority for the administrative 

settlement of complaints 12 

Sec. 3. The function of the Compliance Division to adjust 

complaints 13 

Sec. 4. Definition of adjust,nent 13 

Sec. 5. purpose of adjustiaent 15 

Sec. 6. Evolution of an adjur.tment policy 16 

Sec. 7. The development of standards of adjustment 22 

Sec. 8. Instructions issued to the field offices 24 

Chapter IV. The Origin and Development of pield Offices 30 

Sec. 1. The establishment of teaporary offices 30 

Sec. 2. Internal organizi'tion - early development 32 

Sec. 3. Development of internal organizction -ondcr the 

State Office system 34 

Sec. 4. Later development under the State Office system 40 

Sec. 5. Pinal development ol or;;;--ni'/.ation under the 

Regional Office system 43 

Chapter V. Compliance procedure in Picld Offices 49 

Sec. 1. Complaints, the basis of orocedure 49 

Sec. 2. Development of s nev; compliance procedure 62 

Sec. 3. The development of the use of Field Adjusters 69 

Sec. 4. The direction and supervision of Pield Adjusters .... 73 

Sec. 5. Technique of investigation 82 

Sec. 6. The technique of adjustment by conciliatory measures. 93 

Sec. 7. Non-disclosure of the source of complaints 98 

Sec. 8. Hearings by Local and State Adjustment Boards 102 

Sec. 9. Compromising and dropping of cases 108 



9861 -ii- 



Chapter VI. Compliance Division end Regional Offices 117 

Sec. 1. Development of internal organization 117 

Sec. 2. General aspects of insienia display and renoval 121 

Sec. 3. Kation;,l Labor 3oard cases 125 

Sec. 4. The "Jationel Compliance Board and its successors 126 

Sec. 5. Notice of hearings 128 

Sec. 6. Procedure at hearings 129 

Sec. 7. Evidence 130 

Sec. 8. Appeals 131 

Sec. 9. Development of analysis and revie-./ procedure "before 

hearings — Analysis Branch 132 

Sec. 10. Reference of cases for litigetion 139 

Sec. 11. Contributions section 146 

PART III - OUTSTAImDIFG PROBLEiiS 0? THE CO,.^UX^C^ DIVISION 

Chapter VII. The Hethoa of Handling Complaints 149 

Sec. 1. The complaints basis of procedure-labor violations... 149 
Sec. 2. Disadvantages of and objections to the complaints 

system. . .\ 149 

Sec. o. Practical difficulties in use of complt-ints system... 152 

Sec. 4. iviass compliance as a oroposed solution 155 

Sec. 5. Mechanics of the mass complicnce system 158 

PART IV - SU'LLIARY 

Chapter VIII. Statistical Swiimary of the Activity of the Com- 
pliance Division 161 



APPEIODICES 

These appendices are not here reproduced e:n:cept A-17, A-18, and 
A-32. The others are in IIEA files under the caption "NEA Studies 
Special Exhibits"- Ti'oric Materials ITo. 85. 

Appendix I. KRA State Office Complaint Statistics 237 

List 01 tables 

Appendix II. Exhibits. 

A-1. Wm. H. Davis, "NRi. Plan- for Code Compliancei' 
(December 6, 1?53) 

A-2. Release IJo. 1847 

A-3. Letter from A. J. Altnieyer to Counsel for Complicnce 
Division (ularch 26, 1935) 

A-4. "Reg^alatione for the Adjustment by District Compliance 
Directors of Complaints of Code Violations" 
(October 19, 1933) 



9861 



-111- 



A-5. "For.ns to be used as moc els "by District Compliance 
Directors in correspondence on Complaints " 
(October ly , 1933) 

A- 6. Office Order 40 

A-7. Liaison Circular 75 

A-8. Office Order 92 

A-9. Administrator's letter aprjointing District Coiiipliance 
Directors (October 19, 1S3S) 

A-IO. Office Order 53 

A-11. Compliance Division liemorauduia No. 4 

A-12. Office Order 55 

A-13. Office ..lemorandum 130 

A-14. Letter from -Jonn Swope, Ciiief, Field Brcnch to State 
Compliance Directors (June 2, 1934) 

A-15. Adjusters' report form and instructions 

A-16. Office Order 74 

A-17. Table of C'.sis referred to State Adjustment Boards 249 

A-18. Statistics on cases handled by State Adjustment 

Boards 250 

A-19. Examples of summaries of compromise cases 

A-20. Letter to Philidelpliia Office from Chief, Coordinating 
Branch (i-ebruary 28, 1935) 

A-21. Letter from Cornelius Cocnrane to Harold Dotterer 
re Service Trades complaints (September b, 1S34) 

A-22. Compliance Division Memorand-um "No. 1 

A-23. Compliance Division Uemorandum No. 24 

A-24. Office Order 45 

A-25. Office Order 30 

A-26. Office Order 79 

A-27. Office Order 105 

A-28. Office kemorandUii 309 

9861 -iv- 



A-29. Office Lieraorand-um 305 

A-30. Memorandum fron: COT.pliance and Enforcement Director to 
Chief, Compliance Division (Decenter 3, 1934) 

A-31. Memorandum from L. J. ii. rtin to I.Ierton r'merson, Regional 
Director (jan-aary 1, 1935) 

A-32. Statistical tablss on ce.ses referred to xiegional 

Offices 251 

A-33. Letter fron John Swope, Chief, Field Branch to State 
Compliance Directors (April 27, 1S34) 

A-34. Memorandum of meeting neld in office oz' A. G. McKnight, 
director of Litip~ation on April 3, 1934 (From files of 
Counsel to Compliance Division) 

A-35, I'/iemorandum from A. G-. ucKnight to Blactorell Smith 
(April 23, 1934) 

A-35. Compliance Division Memorandum of J-'jne 4, 1S34 re 
Contributions Section 

Appendix III. Office Manual (including all Executive and Adminis- 
trative Orders) 

Appendix IV. Field Letters 

Appendix V. Mass Compliance 

A. Boot and Shoe survey 

B. Miscellaneous reoorts from State offices 



9861 -V- 



PABT I 
IKTRODUCTIOK 
Ciia:oter I - The Ilature of the Compliance Problem 

Section 1 - ^D.ch s^ voxiXKl of uie x>assa ' °;e of The Hstional Industrial 
5.ecov.--'ry Ac t. It i3 familiar history that in the three ,and one-third 
years intervening between the stock market crash of October, 1929 and 
March 4, 1933, the country had entered into a vast econo.nic and financial 
crisis. Yfliile not without precedent, the situation was dire, and far- 
reachin^ij in its effects. 

Almost immediately follov/ing his inauguration on March 4, 1933, the 
President acted to quiet tiae hysteria of the country. For the first time 
in history the President made use of the radio to talk informall5^ with 
the people. The importance of this state of circumstances and of this 
course of action to ovir subject, lies not so much in its political aspects 
as in the fact that through this medium there was welded together quicid.y 
and effectively a tremendous and forceful Duplic opinion. It was in this 
almost -unbelievable unification of public supi:)ort th^t the National In- 
dustrial Recovery Act, 'and the remainder of the Recovery iDrogram, had 
its foundation. 

It Was in this atmosphere of patriotic fervor, knowing little of 
■party lines and the struggle of c-iuital nnd labor, and boin chiefly of 
fear of economic destruction, that the National Industrial Recovery Act 
became a law and the President's Reemployment Agreement and the codifi- 
cation of industry were began. 

This temper of the puolic, labor and industry, and bhe general 
circumstances surrounding the passage of tne law cannot be overemoha- 
sized in imi^ortance. It w-is -through these meaxiS that it was possible 
to educate the entire country to a program of national industrial 
regulation md cooperation. On the other hand, as business began to 
improve and this tcm-oer cooled, public s\ip-oort waned and public oninion 
suffered a reaction, so that during the l^st few months of IJRA many 
individuals regarded the program as oppressive and a deterrent to the 
country's return to -jrosperi ty. 

This unstable basis of public o-^)inion complicated greatly the 
inherently intricate and complex problem of adjusting business to the 
new regulation by codes. 

Section 2 - The scope of Compliance work . The work of the Compliance 
Division in connection with the enforcement of codes of fair competition 
approved under the National Industrial Recovery Act was designed to meet 
an adiiiinistrative problem distinctive in the history of the Federal 
Government. Under the authority of Section 3(a) of the Act, codes were 
approved establishing miniiiram wages, maxim-am hours, conditions of em- 
ployment and sf[_yi.ndards of fair com'oetitive practice in 555 industries, 
embracing 2,500,000 employers and giving employment to 18,600,000 



9861 



-2- 

persons. C*^) 

The magnitude of c'r.e scope of codes n.ud th^ complexity of the 
regulations which they contained made it necessary to develop a new 
administrative technique for securiut' compliance with code requirements, 
in which educational paid persuasive methoris would be predominant. There 
Was sound precedent for the use of this ai-joro-ich to the administrative 
problem presented by the codes. The introduction of law requiring sig- 
nificant adjustments in business methods requires the establishment of a 
general understanding of the substance and purpose of the law and the 
manner of its administration. In ics report to Congress in 1889, "the 
Interstate Coinmerce Coiamission stated: 

."Undoubtedly tne first diity of an ;).dministrative officer is to give 
effect to the law under whicn he acts. Much depends, however, on the 
manner in which this is done, and misdirected energy may render a law 
nugatory. A fanatical or sens;;tional course rarely leads to good results, 
but on the contrary', usually -orovokes .antagonism, and often tends to de- 
fiance of the law itself. 

"When a l3.w relates to great business- interests intended to be gov- 
erned by its provisions througiriout the whole extent of a vast country 
with many diverse characteristics, great care is required to so administer 
the law that it shall be respected and obeyed. In a matter of such mag- 
nitude and importance ■, . . many other things are required besides -orbse- 
cutions for violations. Careful interpretations of tne provisions of the 
law, correct knowledge of the subjects to which it applies, and of gjiy 
distinctions in conditions that may modify its ar)-olication, are nece.osary, 
in: .order that it may be intelligently applied. A reasonable time was 
also reqt;.ired to enable business interests generally to become familiar- 
ized with the changed methods under the lav/ and .... to adjust their 
modes of business to the new requirements. 

"It was deemed a matter of primary importance to bring the interests 
affected into harmonious relations to the law, and to understand that, 
while it revolutionizes certain metaods, it is something more than a mere- 
ly punitive statute, definig crimes and providing for their punishment, 

and that its ultimate -oarpose is the general good of the country 

This may involve what is sometimes called an educational process in deal- 
ing with intelligent men, not essentially bad or engaged in criminal pur- 
suits, but whose faults vjere in many respects wrong metnods in the condtxct 
of a legitimate business, in which they had too often been t.aught the 
success might be regarded as justifying the methods employed. A standard 
of right --nd wrong as well as of legal duty was to oe set up, and con- 
formity to this standard induced, if possiole, by the conviction that 



(*) Estimates are of the statistical section, a^RA Division of Review 
and are based on monthly employment reports of the Bureau of 
. Foreign and Domestic Conraerce, derived in turn from the Bureau 
of La.bor Statistics and other sources. 



9861 



tneir true interests v;ould be better ^iromoted." (*) 

It would have oeew not only r.dmixiistr-tively unv/ise, but Dractic— 
ally imi^ossible 'co have broug it eaca case of infraction of a code -Dro- 
vision into the federal Courts. 

If there was precedent for the general aprjroach to the loroblem of 
code enforcement, there was little in the previous ex^oeriencf.^ of govern- 
mental agencies or in the Act vmich could serve as a guide to the niethsds 
which might be followed. The Act provided methods of enforcement through 
the courts by injunction and by crirain-il action in the District Courts 
of the United States. Code standards were also made unfair methods of 
comoetition within the meaning of tne Federal Trade Commission Act and 
enforceable ~oy the Commission through cease and desist orders. Neitner 
of these methods offered a solution to the practical problem of correct- 
ing a mass of minor violations, many of them unintentional. The pro- 
cedure followed by the Federal Trade Commission a.nd other semi -judicial 
bodies could not be followed by ITRA, which lacked their legal powers 
(in particular, the povi/er zo coinpel the submission of evidence and to 
issue orders enforcoable in the Courts). 

Furthermore, tne pro-cedure of the Federal Trade Comnission was 
adapted to the specialized h.andling of individual complaints. Under its 
act the Coi! ission was given the pov/er to restrain acts of "onfair com- 
petition. It was, however, left to the Commission in particular cases 
to decide whether certain practices constituted \infair competition, after 
a usually tnorouj^h-going investi^jation. ITeedless to say, the work of the 
Cominission tended to fall into certain well-establisned categories. 

In contrast to tnis tne codes undertook to specify in advance v^hat 
particular acts were per se lonfair practices. The list of prohibited 
acts was not only inflexible, but was l;\r,:;e and varied. Tnis enlarged 
scope of tae tasK, at least insofar as trade practice violations wore 
concerned, served to multiply tne difficulties of adirdni strati on and 
enforcement because of its very complexity. Certainly, the proDlems of 
education were intensified, and oecause of tne additional requirements 
placed on adjxistment agencies a specialized, intensive nandling of even 
each tvpe of viol^-tion was virtually precluded. ,'-•.;-'■• 

In the case of labor compliance tne experiences of state labor 
departments were somewhat more aiialogous. Labor regulations, both under 
state laws and the codes, fell into fairly definite classes and tnere- 
fore a similarity in problems of procedure was present. There was, how- 
ever, in tne codes tne a dditional element of considering labor provisions 
as an item in fair competition. Tnis naturally superimposed the require- 
ment of coordinauion of local with national problems, which again served 
to magnify the task. 



(*) Third P.eport of tne Interstate Commerce Cominission, 5Iovember 30, 
1839, -ro. 10^-105 



9861 



-4- 



As a. result of the limitations on the aiTolicability of the ex- 
"oeriences derived in the administration of tnese other laws and regala- 
tions, the development of new administrative methods for the ¥RA codes 
became essential. 



_f^_ 



Cha^^t-r II - Mann-r of A-mroach 



S-ction 1 - Th--- T ffldfjrlyJLng^th orij^g^j)f„th_co^ system . The 
preliminary administrative step'teicen in the enforcement of MA Codes 
were based upon two premises. ?irst, that there would "be a suhstantial 
number of V-olations, most of which could "be corrected by conciliatory 
and educational method^,; and second, that nublic opinion both within 
industries and on the -nart of the general public could be relied on to 
support ISA standards. It was contemplated that the punitive 
provisions of the Act would be invoked only where these methods failed. (*) 
This progr;im steiiimcd directly out of the Administration's experience 
with the President's 'Reemployment Agreement, particularly in its use 
of insignia for the Tiu?7nose of distinguishing industry members 
complying with and suTD-ocrting the Reem-DlcjTnent Program. 

Fnile previous ex-oeriencc with the Heemployment Agreement 
furnished a definite orientation for the manner in which the uroblem 
could be attacked, a f andaiTiental ai:!esticn of policy immediately 
developed: To what extent should administrative powers with respect 
to enforcement be vested in Industria.l Agencies? 

During the first three months of l®A'r. existence, the energies 
of both the MA staff and the industry members who came to Washington 
to present codes were concerned -nrimrrily with the formulation cf 
standards of fair prac'cice and only tn a small extent with their 
administration. Through the process of cede formulation and the 
gradual development of administrative provisions in codes, ran the 
concept of "ind-uctrial self-government". This notion was 'expressed 
in code formulation by the reauirement that Codes (at least those 
approved under Section 3 of tho I'lRL) be -nro-.ented by a representative 
group of the industry members intended to be bound by the code. 
The niiestion which now presented itself was the manner in which 
industry sh^-uld narticipate in the administration of the code. 

In ord r to provide for continued representation for the industry 
in its relations with IfflA and for cariying out of some of the 
adm.inistrative functions which showed themselves necessary, the 
idea of a "Code Authority" developed early in the process of code 
formulation. The Code Authority was intended to be a legal entity 
representative of the industry and vested under the code with adminis- 
trative powers and planning and research functions. The -oowers 
vested in these agencies under the early codes varied greatly. An 
Industry Committee established by the original Cotton Textile Code 
had as its functions only planning and the ga.thcring of statistics. 

Later codes vested in Code Authorities broad powers of determination 
for the purpose of putting into effect regulations for which the code 



■) Wm. H. Davis, ITational Compliance Director, "1\IRA Plans for Code 
Compliance" (December 5, 1033) p. 4; Bulletin No. 7, p. 7. 



98G1 



only ?-Decified standards. Provisions, dealing with enforcement, if 
tliey a.-pr)eared at all, '^ere similarly varied. The second code to "be 
aTD-oroved, the Wool Textile Code, -orovided for a system of mandatory 
arbitration for the settle'nent of cca-nlaints of code violation. The 
Men's Clothing Ccle (j'ui.iher 15) not only era-oowercd the Code Authority 
to make investigation of cliarges of violati-on, but imposed u-Don it 
a positive obligation to '''o so. 

By October, 1933, the -oroblem of enforce.nent began to make 
itself felt in the form of individual instances of code violations 
which could not be corrected by conciliatory efforts made in most 
cases by Code Authorities or oy Deputy Administrators. Because of 
this fact the establishment of a definite -nrocedure for the handling 
of adminis tractive work connected with enforcement steiDs became 
ap-oarent. While, as we have noted •■'JOve, there was a develoioing- 
tendency to vest administrative -no^er? in Cede Authorities, the Act 
itself -olaced the resnonsibility for enforcement nroceedings in the 
liands of the G-overnment alone by limiting legal remedies tc the 
Government. (*) 

On ITovember ^?, 1935, General Johnson issued a statement of 
Dclicy with a view to clarifying the ouesticn of res-oonsibility for 
enforcement and defining the -oart which industry would -olay in code 
administration. (**) He stated the a,ira of ITrLA as being to give to 
Code Authorities the widest possible range of self-government. 
However, the ultimate resr)onsibility of code administration rested 
with the Government and FRA would undertake to supervise code 
administration by Code Authorities. The Administra,tor segregated code 
administration into two asnects: one, "normal code administration", 
extended to such functions as planning, the collection of statistics, 
the rendering of reports on conditions in the industry, etc; the 
other included educational and administrative steps taken with a view 
to securing comr)liance with, code reouirements. The Administrator's 
definition of what has since come to be loiown as "Com-oliance" may well 
be auoted here for the clarity with which it distinguishes this 
as-oect of code administration not only from normal code administration but 
also from enforcement, the institution of legal r)roceedings to compel 
compliance with code requirements: 

"(a) The instruction and education of those subject to the 
code as to their resnonsibilities thereunder so as to 
antici-oate and avoid comiDlaints of non-comnliance. 

(b) The adjustment of cora-nlaints of non-compliance by ■ 
education, fair findings of facts, and the pressure of 
oninion within the Industry. 



(*) See Sectron -Stc-)— of ■ the national Industri ah- Recovery Act. See 
also Purvis v. Bazemore, Western Powder Manufacturing Co. v. 
_ .Interstate Coal Co., and otner cases cited in Office Manual, 
Part v; Section V, "Jui-is diet ion and Parties!" 

(**; Eelease No. 1847 (llovember 22, 1933) 
9861 



„7- 

(c) The ad.justrruont of ccnrnlaints "by arbitration, conciliation, 
and mediation. 

(d) 'he. rendition of rtport-? to the enforcement agencies of 
jovernment in taose cases where all other means have failed, 
.'.'uch renorts should be based -a-non adeauate findings of 
fact," (-■) 

Industries which were sufficiently well organized to have agreed 
unon a code were deemed to be nreDared to undert?ke f^oncticns of 
normal code administration. In the field of co::..-lirnce, however, 
industry was not -nre-oared ur eaui-o-oed to deal with enforcement -oroblems. 
This fianction, it was dpclpred , would be assumed by J"U until such 
time as indxistry was organized to carry it out- The following -Drogram 
was laid down for the transfer of compliance fu-ictions from, the 
Government to industry: 

"As soon as a Code Authority is set ut) and ready to function, 
it will usually be well enough organized to adjust most comrilaints 
of violations of the trace 'r-v tice i^rovisions of the code. Such 
corarilaints involve' the rights of one em-jlcyer against another 
eratjloyer within the Industry. Trade associations and other existing' 
agencies of inf^ustrial self-gcvernir.ent- are well suited to the 
■ handling of this tyne of comi'laint, although, of course, the public 
interest must be ypfoguarded by genc7;a.l governmental exercise of a 
veto. This gover^.'S'^ntal veto -nower is the. substitute for the 
anti-trust laws in tnis new set-ur). In most cases, the government 
representative on a Code Authority sits without vote, but with a veto. 

"The f'onction of securing compliance with the labor -orovisions 
of codes presents a much more difficult problem of organization and 
admini-: tration. Very few industries are drgandzed at this time 
along ines suitable to adjustment and -fact; finding in this type 
of car . Comi3lPints of violations of labor provisions should not 
be ref rred 'to Code Authorities (or any agencies of industrial self- 
goverrjnent) unless such agencies have adcc^acite labor representation 
'thereon. Most codes do not provide for such representation. 

"The problem of Code Compliance, by its very nature, requires 
a regional system of fact finding and adjxistment agencies approprirte 
to the handling of labor complaints. In order to protect the 
inte-ests and rights of an employee under a code, the employee must 
be furnished with an agency conTjenient in location and impartial in 
nature. The government has provided t'-^enty-six regional ccmpliance 
agencies, to which complaints of code violations may be referred where 
tnere is no approved m.achiner;/ within the industry to handle such 
complaints. 



(*) Ibid., p. 1 



9P61 



-b- 

"This pystem will fill the "blanks in industrial self-government. 
It will act for an industry while the industry is organizing to 
handle such com-olipnce -oroblems for itself; or where an industry in 
a. certain territory has no ager.cios of industrial self-government; 
or where an industry, though org-inized to handle trade -oractice 
comrilr-ints, has no machinery arj-oroved to handle later comrjlaints; 
or where an-oroved machinery has failed to adjust a comrjlaint." (*) 

The original progrrm for compliance administration was followed 
throughout the greater part of the existence of WA with little divergence 
excer)t upon two -points, the cessation of efforts to organize industry 
for the handling of labor ccmnlaints and the attempt made late in the 
develoTDment of com-oliance administration tc shift the "basis for compliance 
work from merely acting on com-ol'-^ints to inspection. Eowever, although 
new legal instr^jmenta^lities were devised (such as the methods provided 
for dealing with violations occurring in connection with government 
contracts) and new administration agencies were established, the 
fundamental approach to the problem remained the same. 

Section 2 - The e staj)lis_hment j^f^^n^jidminist rativ e procedure . It has 
been shown that the codification of industry created a vast and novel 
federal administrative problem. Such precedents and guides as did 
exist did not furnish a strict analogy for an approach to the problem. 
The procedure which was established, therefore, in October, 1933, was in 
a sense in the nature of an experiment for dealing with the problem. (**) 

Inasmuch as employees had been' taught to complain tc Local 
Compliance Boards of PHA violations, and since so much reliance was 
placed on public support, it was natural that the new code compliance 
procedure was based entirely on the filing of complaints by employees, 
competitors and others. lJo_ facilities were provided in the new 
governmental adjustmen-i syct^m for initiating compliance activities, since 
the procedure was ProdicAed-'^on the filing of a formal complaint, which 
ha.d to meet certain reauircments as to legal sufficiency. In this 
respect the procedure resembled that of the Federal Trade Commission, 
although it has been shown the problems of' the latter were different. 

There was developed as the method of administering the codes the 
"adjustment" of complaints. By this was meant the bringing about of 
conformity to code provisions^ It will be shown in the succeeding chapter 
tliat the application of this ract-iod cf code administration was changed 
and modified as the growing experience in gaining compliance indicated 
the need for stress on rarticular phftses of the work. 



(*) Ibid., p. 2. 

(**) The development of compliance procedure is discussed in 
Chapter V and VI, infra. 



9861 



G-enei-elly spepking-, the sdjustmer.t of cases incliiclcti both the idea 
of infor;;i:Lnj the re?,)or:c!entr, of t^ieir obli -,';" ticns Fiid tiu'.s ptte.n itin*^ 
to insvre fiiture comoliance, but also, v/ith incret r.in,.r iriport'-^nce as 
time p?nsca, the correction of Tst viol'-tions by coi.-i .e ■?? tin ;; the 
o'-rtie-. i:-.j-'ired taereby. In labor violcPtions Dc rticvlsrly va- the 
lotter true. 

Tiere tnere v.-as jrccec.ent. As oTJ.tliiied in e. letter of ivierch "'6, 195£ 
from .;r. A. J. A.ltneyer, oecon'-i i^st^i^tc-nt Secretary of Lebor, to the 
Counsel for the Co;;;pliance Division, the practice of obtrinin^ wg,-e 
restitvtions from violators of r.inimam -np ;:e l?',"s hj:d bc'-n ?"ollo'"Oi'. by 
the stc.te labor cejprtments for a nvuaber ox ye.-^rs. (•*) The adv ntp^'cs 
of reo^'uirinj this form of adjustment were s-'maeci vp tt. rollo-vs: 

"(l) It makes the -"iolator pay i: ■loi^ey aiount on 

accov.nt of :j;^ot violrtions n'ore jromptly than 
if legal action '-/ere co. /;v.-nced. 

(2) iz :iol: s over the viclf^tor' s he- d the possi- 
bility nf rorc'c tior. for ;?st viol: ticns if 
r.-jere are fu.ture \ io '. eti ons. 

(3) It qiives an o.j'iortunit,; to the enforcement 
agency to make cle-r to tJ.e viol'-tor the funda- 
mental ^mroQsc;: of tV;c koiv siriCc it ill-iTstrr-tes 
the fact V'-rt tlic j:ovenime::t is iiot ro much 
interested in punitive mer-sures trkin;-; th^ form 
of oroscc^i.tion as it is in makin-< cert-'an that 
the purjr-sfc of the ir?' is caxU-ico, out. 

"All GVicccssful - c ami'-'tr' tor- 01 st^to lr^'"S I rr.i ' urc 
'.70uld a'-rec that the rcilt is thr t t:icre is a ^-renter 
.)crccnta':e of ■'illin;?; co;n )li-"ncp, u jou ■'' ich after ;-ll ve 
mi^st de •cnc" for the successfl o leration of a lav;." (**) 

At this point is recalled the two iremises, '-eretofore mentioned, 
on v;:iic!-i the compliance oro^rrin v^r, Uised, nry;iel.y, that there v/ould be 
a. lar::e uuraoer of ^.-iolationn v/'-.ich could be corrected b^ ac^justment , 
and ti-iPt public su.pjort -ou.la be ■■^iven to the ac'jiiinistration of the 
codes. As a. corollary to the first premise, the f;re^t m;-;._iority of 
responc.ents ''.crt believed to act 'vitiirut --ny deliber-tc intent to 
violate the lav/ anc. it -van felt t i' t the re.riaininf few coula be ef- 
fectively dealt with tl-rouvjh the l<. "^1 jroccs-es defined by the Act. 
This, of course, pres^'.jooRed the onf -irceabllit; and le^al soionriness 
of the coLes. 



('^) In URA Studies Special :-:hibits Work :;rterials # 77, 
(*=») Idem. 



3861 



-10- 

If the first .jre.uisc '-as a prereo^- isite of an^- acraRtuient machinery, 
the seconc- "'.- s zl-i t.errt -f the eu-.dni' trrtive sy^itern. It -as the cradle 
tor the use of ITJl in i nia, lor t-e reli.-r.ce on co.mlaints as the basis 
of proceciure, anc, for t -.e rc; uithte o.tsic.e infl-uence needed for the 
effective a^ /-"a!? tnier.t oi vicl-' tions. 



3361 



-11- 



PAllT II 



C-073E.u.IE::TAL OPX^AIH^^TIOiT AVID PLOCEDUrJl 
Chapter III - The Administrative Stttlenent of Code Violations 



Section 1 - The need for correcti:i;-; violations ■b-; ac'jninistrative 
measures. It is a fundamental conce"ot of industrial ref_:ulation and. 
la.Dor lej'^islation, jased on the errperience of other .'■oveinimcntal 
a/;cncies enra,^,'ed in the f.dninictration of ne- • la:;s of -ride and far- 
-reachin," application -Thich do not deal nith matters consic'ered as 
malum per sc, t]iat the successful operation of the statute ultimately 
depends on the eclacation of persons affected "by it to their ooliG'S" 
tions under the lav, a.nd on the presence of a stronr; ptiolic opinion 
favorin'j; enforcement. (*) This "fact vas recoiiinir.ed ty the Interstate 
Commerce Conmission in its report to Con^^ress in 1SC9* (**) ^^ ^^ 
clearly illu.stratod hy the f'overn lent' s errperience in Prohibition LaiT 
enforcement. 

The most o'bvio\is, and posrioly the most effective method of 
education ano development o:" support h" the momocvs of industrj' 'vas 
to correct the violations committed, and to "orin,-; the employers' 
husiness operations into confor.aitj' ^.-ith the coc.es. Coupled vith 
this there had to he tae instruction of employers as to the raeanin;:? 
of code -provisions n,nc the e::planation of t]ie henef its to oe derived 
from complio.nce 'vith the HHI: prooi--^-i. 

Aside from fulfillin- the funCp^ lentrO. need descri hed ahove, the 
use of a systeyi of auiiinistrative settlement of code violations nas 
dictateo. 'by the pi-actical limitations o:" the enforce^ient systems 
provided h: the Act. (***) This statement is so self-evident that 
it is hardl- • necessary more than to mention that appro-ri.'nately 120,000 
complaints xx code violations r-ere docketed O"- the field offices of 
tlia Compliance Division. Thi:^ fiiTare is e:;clusive of cpmplaints 
handled h"' Code Ai?.thorities and complaints chaiyin:' violations of the 
President's Eeemploz.nient Agreement. The volume of cases 'rould have 
increased consider?hly had the ¥OA actively sou{;;ht out violations, 
under an" s-'sten siiilar to mass compliance. 



(*) This is the underlyin;-; theor;' of the adjustment system, see IIHA 
Bulletin ITo. 7> l.^. 3» Code Administration for compliance "includes: (a) 
The instixiction anc" ediication of those siioject to the code as to their 
responsihilities thereunder so as to anticipate and avoid complaints of 
noncompliance, ■ (h) The adjustmient of co iplaints of noncompliance 'oy 
education, :'indin,rs of fa-cts, and the pressure of opinion vithin the 

Industr- ." 

(**) Supra, p. 2. 

(***) Title I, section 3 para^-ra^fas (d),' (c), (f) , provided respectively 
for proceedin-^s hy the Pederal Trade Commission' under its organic act, 
suits h-' the various District .Attorneys to restrain code violations, and 
prosecutions of code vioIa,tions as misdemeanors. The penalties \7ere re- 
stricted to transactions in or affectinf; interstate or foreiyn commerce, 

9S6l 



-12- 



Section 2 - Source of a-uthorit"" for the r.cjninir.trr.tive settleyient of 
complaints, No^'here in t.lic L".".tional Industrial Hecover;,^ Act is there 
P-ny ejcpressec'. delef;atioa of po"-er to the President or his appointed 
agents to adi.iinister the vario is codes of fair cor.ipetitioh, ' to handle 
conplaints, or adjust cases of violation, nor is there an^ statenent 
of responsibility' to do so. 

However, 'Tithout enterin." on a discussion of the le;;al questions 
involved, it is sufficient to treat the function of acninistering as 
implied fron the pc'er granted to the President to establish agencies, 
appoint personnel, and to prescribe their duties and authority (*) and 
also fron the prr-ctical necessity of r.dninistering the codes once they 
\7ere approvec\ 

Under Section 2(b) of the Act, (**) the President delegated this 
function luth others to the Adiinistrator (***) -^ho issued the regula- 
tions for the adjusfcnent of cases (****) and under T/'iose direction the 
Compliance Division -Tas established and invested "ith the duty of ob- 
taining conpliance nith the various codes and the President's Heenploy- 
nent Agreement ''oy the members of inc-ustry. (*****) 



(*) National Industrial P.eccvery Act, Title I, Section 2(a) provides as 
folloijs: "To effectuate the policy o:. this title, the President is here- 
by authorized to establish such r-jencies, to accept and titilize such 
voluntar-- and uncompensated services, to appoint, without regard to the 
provisions of the civil service lans, such officers and employees, and 
to utilize such Federal officers and eriployees, and, vith the consent of 
the State, such State, and Local o:'':icers and employees, as he may find 
necessary, to prescribe their authorities, duties, respoinsibilities, and 
tenure, and, ^-'ithout regard to tbe Classification Act o. 1923, as amen- 
ded, to fi:: the compensation o" any officers and en.ployees so appointed." 
(**) Note (6.), supra. Section 2(b) provides as follo-.Ts: "The President 
may oelegate any of his functions and po'-'er-. under this title to such 
officers, a';ents, and cnployeen, as he nay desir.-nate or appoint, and 
iaa3^ establish an industrial planning and research agency to aid in 
carryin- out his functions uncer this title." 

(***) Execiitive Orders S173 (June iS, 1933), 62O5-A (July I3, 1933). 
The National Industrial 2eco''.'-ery f.oard ■■-ns invested -'iththe same po'Ters 
at the time of its apx)cintnent "o-j Ilrecutive Order 655^ (Se-otember 27, 
193^) and 6993 (Llarch 21, 193?). 

(****) "Regulations for the adjustment by District Compliance Directors 
of complaints of code violations" (October I9, 1933), signed by Hu£;h S. 
Johnson, Administrator, and approved by the Special Industrial' Hecovery 
Doard; Helease No. ISUy (November 22, 1935), statement by General John- 
son regarding code acbiinistrr.tion; NUA E^alletin No. 7, "Manual for the 
cljustment of complaints by State Directors and Code Authorities" 
(January 22, 193^); A(^xiinistrative Order X-lU (A-oril G, I93U) ; Admini- 
strative Order X-29 (llav 12, 193 U) ; Office lianual, III-UlOO et sec., 
Compliance (March 27, 1935). See also Office Order 40 (October 25, 1933), 
rrhicn among otner tumgs m e:":''ect delegated to the Co roliance Division 
the po-rer to issue instriictions as to the adjustment of" cases. 
(*****) Office Order kO (October 2G, 1933). 

9S61 



« 13 - 

Section 5 - The function of the Co-nr jligjice Division to ad.just comDlpints . 
It v/as the duty of the Coiiiplignce Division, as stated in Office Order 40 
(*) estatlishing the Division, to endeavor to adjust all corriplaints of 
violations of codes of fair competition, aJid of the President's Heercploy- 
raent Agreement. This fuaiction was further stated ty the Adjninistrator 
as the adjnstTient of complaints of non-compliance "by education, fair 
findin:5s of fact, and the pressure of opinion within the industry and "by 
artitration, conciliation, and mediation. (**) There was provided an ad- 
ministrative machinery for the handling and adjustment of complaints 
which had its climax in the procedure provided, for removal of NRA. insignia 
from violators and the reference of unadjusted cases to the law enforce- 
ment agencies of the Government*. (***) 

Eiis idea of adjustment of cases of violations found precedent in the 
estaolished practices of the federal Trade Commission and the State 
Labor Departments. A report of the Women's Bureau of the U. S. Depart- 
ment of Labor summed ut) the administrative efforts of the various States 
in obtaining compliance vdth their minimum wage laws, as follows: 

"In enforcing the laws the co:nnissions have relied much more 
on gaining compliance througn setting rates that would comm.and 
general support from the eraployers than on forcing obedience 
throiigh widespread prosecution of non-compliance. When cases 
of non-compliance have been found, every effort has been made 

, to ad list these cases informally between the employer, and the 
commijsion's agents." (****) 

Part of the adjustments made by State Labor Departments included the 
collection of back wages as well as obtaining the' present conformity of 
the employer's operations to the lav/. 

Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission for several years prior to 
the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act pursued the practice 
of dismissing cases on stipulation that the respondent would discontinue 
the acts obnoxioxis to the Comi^ussion. (*****) Wliile a close parallel 
between this method of operation by the Federal Trade Commission imd. the 
adjustment system of ERA cajinot be dravm, it is mentioned to show an 
established method of administering the law where the volume of complaints 
of violations is too large to be efficiently handled by the enforcement 
system provided by the statute. 

Section 4 - Definition of a djust ment . Althoiogh, as has been pointed out 
in the tv/o preceding sections, the functions of the Compliance Division 
have been stated on numerous occasions to include primarily the adjust- 
ment of complaints of violation, a thorough search of orders 

r*) Bote (8) , Supra 

(**) Release 1847, November 22, 1933, statement by General Hugh S. 
Johnson with regard to code adiriinistration. This statement was later in- 
corporated in Bulletin No. 7. 

(***) The insignia removal procedure is described below in Ciiapter VI. 
(****) Bulletin 61, "The Development of Minimum Y/age Laws in the United 
States, 191."^. to 1927" (1928), 278-519, inclusive, give a detailed dis- 
cussion of dministrative mieasures emploj'-ed by sample States; see also 
pp. 381- 39), inclusive, for a further discussion of the subject. 
(**=^**) "Annual Report of the Federal Trade Commission" (1932)" pp. 44,45 

9861 



"14- 

and. instractions pertaining to the Futject f^ils to reveal any ettempt 
to 6.efine "adjustment" tintil p comppratively late date,(*) 

Eoi7ever, .the raoanintt of the tenn can he arrived at ty giving con- 
sideration to the common usaiier of the '-'ork, together '.^ith tho various 
official statements outlining the functions of the Comiiliance Division 
and. the elements of code administration. 

The standard dictionary definitions give the 'neaning of the 'vord 
"adjust" as heing to settle, or oring into harmony vith the general 
plan. (**) On the other hand, the word has been given a. special meaning 
in business transactions, e.g. to set'tle clains, as in the insurance 
business. 

Thus, v;e see thj^t the mecjiings credited to "adjustment" by usage 
erabod^'- the idea of the payment ox claii.is or damages, i.e. restitution, 
and the present correction of variations from the general scheme so as 
to bring conformity '^ith the rule, i.e. future compliance. 

This application of the tern, is lent dignity by early utterajices 
regard.ing code adndnistre.tion and compliance. General Johnson in his ■ 
relea,se rega^rding code administration (***) said, 

"The term 'administration for comrjliance' is intended to include: 
(a.) The instruction and education of those subjects to the cod.e as 
to their responsibilities thereunder so as to anticipate and avoid com- 
plaints of non-compliance, 

(b) The adjustment of complaints of non-compliance by education, 
fair lind.ings of fa,cts, and the pressure of opinion -dthin 'the Industrj'^, 

(c) The adjustment of complaints by arbitration, conciliation^ and. 
med.iation, 

(d.) The rendition of i-e"oorts to the enforcement agencies of govern- 
ment in those cases -'here all other means have failed. Such reports 
should be based UTDon adequate findings of fact," 

-he adjustment of cases by education and, instruction of respond.ents 
as to their code obligations clearly implies bringing the employers into 
imraed.ia,te compliance vdth the codes so that continued future observation 
of the cod-e regulations niglit be virtually self-sustaining (except in 
wilful cases). Stress '-ras laid on b"ailding a sQxmd basis for future 
code compliance by industry?-. 



(*) Field Letter 125 (J\ine lo, 1934) stated certain standards of ad- 
justment and indirectly defined the word; Tield Letter 193 (January 
10, 1935) crystallized the meanings heretofore given the term and. 
placed them in definition form; Office Manual, III, 1518.221 and 
1518.222 (Novem.ber 21, 1934). 

(**) TTebster's New International Dictionary; Funk and Wagnal.l's Ner: 
Standard Dictionary; ''inston's Simolified Dictionary. 

(***) Note ip, 13 •' . . 
9861 ■ 



-15- 

Heco.piition x^as also given to the feet that some sort of recompense 
should te sought for the damage elready done. This ia a natural con- 
clusion from adjustment hy arbitration, conciliation, and mediation, since 
in composing the differences hetveen the parties to a complaint, it is 
usually the aim to' comi^ensate the aggrieved person. This idea is, of 
course, mo\'e clearly ev:pressed in violations of wages and hours provisions 
where the rm-ployee may te paid the deficiency in wage or he co-npensated 
for his overtime. 

Because of the almost limitless variety of situations arising under 
code compliance, in irhich no two cases of violation were exactly alike, 
it is impossiDle even after tro years of experience to dra-'-f a precise 
definition hroad enough to cover all contingencies. However, there -ere 
developed cTefinitions -hich sufficiently embodied the principles and 
basic elements of adjustment to serve as a generel guide in the handling 
and settlement of cases by the field staff and the coraplisjace councils. 

Section 5 ~ Purpose of adjustment . (*) Throughout the history of com- 
pliojice the underlying theorj/- of adjustment remaineo the same. The seem- 
ing difference in mesnings "^as due to the changes in stress on particular 
purposes soiight to be accoprolished by the device, the grat^ual evolution 
of adjustnent techniques and policies and the establishment of standards 
to be followed in handling cases as a result of actual experience. 

The original purpose of this system of operation was primarily to 
instradt enployers as to their obligations under the codes and to mal:e 
then confonn to the law both for the present and the future. The idea 
that this rould serve as the soundest basis for permanent administration. 
While the value of this methocl of approach should not be underestimated, 
it ras found that something mere vas needed to prevent recurrences of 
violations by those employers less cooperf.tive toward the program ?Jid 



(*) The evolution of the Compliance Isivision was an organic development. 
It may be divided into four distinct periods: the District office period 
from Octob-r, 1933 through January, 19Z'^4; the early State Director period 
to Jvme, 1 '34 (when Field Letter 125 and Sup-olements.ry iviemorandum Ho, 1 
were issued and the system of reporting to Washington was changed); the 
later Statj Director period from J\me, 19S4 to January, 1935 (when the 
Regional office system began to f-orction); and the final stage from 
Janua.ry,' 1935 (under the Regional system and when lield Letter 193 was 
issued) to i.:ay 27, 1935 (when the Suioreme Court decision in the Schechter 
Poultr;.' case was annconced) . This was all presaged ^oy the earlier period 
of ITPJl activity. Adjustment policies, internal organization, and com- 
pliance procedure all developed together during these periods. 



9851 



-16- 

less receptive to education "by instruction. 

Adjustment then csone to have an ar)parently different meaning. The 
original idea of restitution merely to place the parties in status quo 
was enlar;.;cd to include 'the element of a deterrent to future violations, 
■'although in form NM still clung to the first definition. (*) Thus, in 
Field Letter 125 and in the Supplementary Lemorandum Ho. 1 to Bulletin 
No, 7, there was stated for the first time in form of -written instructions 
that a higher rate, varying from time and one-third up^jrard, must be paid 
for illegal overtime in order to effect a satisfactory adjustment, (** ) 
Likev-ise, in the absence of records, the field offices were told to accept 
the era-oloyees' statements at their face value ('-'ithin the discretion of 
the offices) and, to place on the respondents the burden of proof. (***) 

This change in the purpose of adjustment is reflected in the de- 
velopment of standards aiid rules of adjustment, discussed later. 

Section 6 - Evolution of an adjustment polic y. In the beginning of 
compliance activities and until Jun,e, 1934 there was little attention 
paic' to '7ag6 rcstitiitions in a 'juste:'', cases. As iias boon stated 
before, the "rincipal i'lca in ?. '.jr.f.tin^ cases v,?s to malco the respon- 
dent brin;. his business operations into coaion.iity vdth the code pro- 
visions B.iiC agree to cor-roly in the futUi'c. While the instructions 
for handling complaints contcrn')l?,te'~ the payment of back wages in 
some cases(****) the rcstitr.tion ;oi'i:Tci-5le ha'', a very hs.zy and in- 
definite -"laco in a ".jv-straents. The adjustment of cases oy concilia.- 
tion, mef.iatioii, an.-, arbitration, (*****) while implying restitution 

(*) Office :;a:.rur-l, III, 4100.2 (Larch ?.7 , 1935) defined restitution as fol- 
lows: "'Restitution' for ?. violation means re;oa.iring the damage caused 
by the violation so far as is practicable in the judi^ment of UFA and 
in a manner consistent with 1I?A policy." The latter part of the defini- 
tion contains such general qua.lifications as to mal:e it uiisatisfactory 
as a gui:e to iiel('. offices for policy in nandling cases. 

(**) "Supplementary Memorandum ITo. 1, "".elative to the Ar-just.ent of Com- 
plaints", p. 5 (issued attached to Field Letter 125); Field Letter 125, 
"i/anual for the Handling of Labor Go;;r.laints" (June 13, 1934) p. 4. 

(***) Supplementary i.emorandujn ITo. 1, p. 6, Fielc:. Letter 125, p. 8 stated 
the principle o:_ly rlth relation to c-'^ses under codes requiring the 
keeping of records. For further development of this practice see Cha.p- 
ter V and the Part of the Kistoiy devoted to a discussion of ou.tstand- 
in^, problems. 

(****) Liason Circulrr 75 (October 20, 1"33), rith which were transmitted the 
initi-.l instiu.ctions to District Goivioliance Directors on adjusting cases, 
■fflid: "There are circiimstances luider which a fu.rthcr adjustment is nec- 
essary oth&r tlian a mere exi^lanation of the employer's obligations." 
For example, it stated that the deficiency shof.l : bo paid in minii-ium 
v.'age violations, (p. 2, par. C) It went on to say that no restitution 
could be aifdc in chil\ labor violations, only a correction to confonn 
in the present and future being necessarv. (p. 2, par. H) . 
(*****) ITo to (p.' '13 

9861 



-17- 

rlso indicatrd that tlie t-ijiorint of iDo.ck wages w.-as to be deterninf^cl "b^ 
a:^reeraent 'betiTepn the parties ,':^s to the facts. 

This is stated in bulletin ilo.7 as follovrs: 

"If the respondent adraits the viol?,tion alleged "but furnishes 
satisfactory evidence thft he is no\7 conpl^ing, is Trilling 
to comply in the future r.nd has mn.de equitaljle restitution 
for past violations, the case "jill be considered as adjusted, 
and the complainant and respondent ',7ill be so notified. "(*) 

l.'anj'' cases, especially during, the period before the establishi'.cnt 
of the State office system in Janu.ary, 1934, vrere adjusted aiid closed 
merely on the agreeraent of the respondent to comply in the future, 
little or no attempt was made to rectif;^ past violations other thn;.i bj"- 
e—plaining the necessary changes in operation and obtaining agreements 
to complj'' in the future, which vfere often inforraral and oral. Restitu- 
tion was required only in infrequent cases, where the complainant was 
ujiusuallj'' insistent, cxiO. tnen v;as Ox-dinarily the result of conpronise 
between complainant nxid respondent. 

It n:aEt be remembered in this connection that this was the ini- 
tial period of experimentation. The personnel, both in ¥a,shington 
and in the field, was v/ith few exceptions totally inexperienced in the 
0,dministra.tion of industrial regalations. A direct result of the lack 
of experience was the absence of adequate instructions and working 
policies, which could be suc^essfulljr developed only from actual con- 
tact with the problems of code administration. 

Added to this \7as the fact that the field offices were greatlj'- 
u.ndermanned. The normal stpaf consisted of the District Conipliance 
Director, his assistant, a Legal Adviser, and perhaps one other person 
who divided his time betv'Ben the field office and the Local Comjplicace 
Board. There ?;as also, of cOiorse, stenographic and clerical assist- 
ance. In tae i.issouri office, for example, there ^lere but t'"'© people 
actually handling the complaints vrhich were pouring in at the rate of 
about 7n to 80 per wee^;. 

The lack of an adequa^te, trained staff grew to be one of the 
oiitstandinr problems of the Conpliaiice Division, both in Washington 
and in the fip.ld, and played an important part in the formulation of 
policies of procedure. 

With the added experience in obtaining compliance and the in- 
creased staff under the State office system, came a gradual change in 
the ^adjustment polic3r. While this step in the development did not be- 
come really apparent so as to be officially adopted bv the Compliance 
Division until Jiine, 1S34-, it w.as 'rell recognized in the field several 



(*) Bulletin llo, 7, p. 14, (Underlining supplied). 



9861 



-13- 
Lionths before. (*) 

Actin?: on their o— i initiative the state offices laid more and 
more stress on bad: ,i7age restitutions paid, formal assurances of pre- 
sent ojid future complirnce. Instepd of the original policy, dicto,ted 
by necessit:"- of circumstances, of tai:in:'^; the repondent's assuronce of 
cooperation at its face value, stricter standards of adjustment uere 
introduced. The requirement of convincing; proof of present coniplituice 
and pa;5Tnent of all bad: nages due to the complainant as well as to the 
other employees of the respondent, tcmdcd to become the polic"" of the 
field offices in adjusting complaints. (**) 

This change in adjustrient policy was caused not only by experience in 
haiidling cases, but b;^ e::treme pressure from labor and the more respon- 
sible employers who saw that this was the onlj'- feasible method of deaJ.- 
ing with ".violations administrp,tively. 

Coincideutally \rith the development trJring place in the field, 
and even slightly preceding it, the national Compliance Board bega;a. 



(*) This change in adjustment policy did not occtir uniformly 

throughout the field. Some offices preferrec to regard as 
adjusted an;'- coirolaint which had been properly cleared from 
the record in accordance with the reporting system then in 
effect. 

Thus, when a case was transferred to another agenc;"-, either a 
Code Authority or the National Compliance Director for instance, 
for further attem.pts at settlement, the obligation to adjust 
the complaint ¥fas regarded as terminated. That this was a 
spurious prestunption is clea,r when it is recalled that m^nj'' 
such cases were returned to the State Offices still unadjusted 
several months later. It was partiallj'' because the more pro- 
gressive offices reaJized the fallacy of this definition of 
adjustment that the;^ gravitated toward a stricter policy of ad- 
justments in fact, rather th.?n tiirough a mere booldceeping device. 

This lack of homegeneity of the field, offices in development of 
their credos of adjustment 'and methods of operation was due to 
variations in personalities paid outside influences on the particu- 
lar offices. This is discussed in more detail .■."under Chapter IV. 

(**) One should avoid the inference that the changes in adjustment 
policy sketched in this section were sudden, or unknomi to the 
entire staff in Washington. Those persons who came in contact 
with field work, even indirectly, were also cognizant of the 
change and the necessity for it, although perhaps less vividly 
so. It was onl;;- this fact that official recognition could be 
accorded. The development was a matter of growth rather than a 
sudden determination. 



9861 



-19- 

to tend tor^ard a more strict ac^justment policv. Unfortun?.tely, the 
"oolicies estaMished ty the Board were not communicated to the field, 
e::cept indirectl/ in isolated cases, until June, 1934. 

Thus, we seo the ITotional Compliance Board adopting the follow- 
ing statement of policy rt its 23th meetin;", on Deceraher IS, 193Q': 

"The ERA Policy is well established that the National 
Compliance Poard or a local Compliance Board may properly 
require exi adjustment -"by restitution of tack pay as a 
condition to continued display of the Blue Ea.^le -under 
PRA. 0.^ as a concition to restoration of the Blue Eagle. 

"A nv "/ber of local Compliance Boards are on record as 
refuiixng to put themselves in the position of collection 
agencies. As a matter of practical administration, we 
may advise the local compliance hoards to assist in re- 
covering ho,ck pay, The local compliance hoards may adopt 
the policy of withh-olding recci.mendations for removal of 
Blue Eagles from violators of PEA who maire restitution 
to emploj'-ees. " 

At tiie same meetinf: the Board established the principle tha.t 
restitution for overtime, in arldition tc a,ssuraJice cf future compliance, 
was necessary for restoration of the Blue £agle. (*) Previously the 
Board had estahlished the practice of req\iiring formal agreements to 
adjust ar.d to complj'- in tnf- future. (**) These two policies were 
followed h;'- the Board- in handling cases hefore it until its a,holition 
on Hay 21, 1934 hy Office Order 90. (***) 

Moreover, the ITational Compli'^nce Board earl;'- recognized the 
penalty element in adj-ustmcnt rnd shapec' its policies to inclu.de thrt 
direction. In the True Form Cor::et Co. c-j.se, Decemher 6, 1933, it 
required as apart of the adjustment tnat the respondent priy the costs 
of an au.dit to determi-"-e the rr.o-unt of restitiition and also pay a sum 
to the Code Authority to reimturse it for investigational expenses. (****) 

(*) Complaint against Consimiers Food Stcres,Bridgeport ,Conn. , res- 
pondent, minutes of L3th meeting, Decemher 13,1933. See aJLso 
case "gainst Iloro liaji-uf ?,cturing Co.,l!ew Orleans, La., respondent, 
rainut s of ?9th meeting, December 15,1933. See Field Division 
files. 

(**) For e.canple see n.inutes of hearing of True Form Corset Co., 

Phila-delphia, Pa. , December S, ■1953. See Field Division files. 

(***) These policies were ca,rrieo on >- the Advisory Council, shortly" 
changed to the Conpliaiice Council, which was established b;^ the 
Compliance Division pursu.ant to Office Order SO, The Advisory' 
Council took over the work of the national Compliance Board 
without a brealv. In fact the change was ha,rdly known to persons 
outside NRA in T7a,shington. See Chanter VI, infra, for a -further 
discussion. 

(****) See Mote (27), supra. 
9861 



This is better illustrated by tne followir.g statement of policy on 
Teb-C3.:r- 9, 1'"'4-: 

"rational Cor.r-'liance 'Joar^' ro:,:'.rc.s payment of cost 
of a -ic.it by ras-onc'eut an a fair rViC: necessary --art of 
tlie restit-ation. "(*) 

The obvious -u:"03e of thi- v-as ti'o-foir.: to conserve, compliance 
facilities of the CoCTplianne Division and the Co>fe Aiathorities and to 
add s.n ertra bv.±\.en on the rer/pondert in reik-ir-i^ the adjustment so as to 
tend tD mir.imizc -:.ny future desire to "iolate a^-air.(**) 

In ricld Letter IdS (Jujia 6, ldr4) tiiere vc.s inau£;urated a noTT 
systun of re-oortinfi, from the finlJ of:"iccs to the ConioliancG Division 
in '7ardxin" ton. Beginning rit-i the period of Ju:ie 16 to Jvjie 2T, 1934 
the offices re"orted the anoirits of bad: xja.^.eh -lai". ''o:: respondents in 
adjustin:, ooth PEA and code violr.tior.s co:.Tolaints. From this time on 
(when Field letter 1<;5 and SU:jplementai7- I.iemo ran J iva llo. 1 to lulletin 
Ho. 7 v/ere also issued) u;rtil the termin?.tion of compliance activities 
on Lfe.y Z7, 1935, co.itin-aed emphasis vas lai ■". on v;ajc restitutions in 
mahin^ a'.juLstments. The reasons for this attitude h^avo been discixsscd 
in the preceding section. 

In tn;;.E connection it is v'ell to note that under the nev reioorting 
system the field offices v/ere ronuire" to shov r-'hich of the valid com- 
plaints had been a'j^isted by the payment of bacji v.-a^os. V/here the 
report to V'asliin^ton shor.-ed complaints ',:hich lia.d been closed v/ithoLit 
the res")ondert mal:in£ restitution to his eriioloyees, there y-^s a,l- 
vays tno "istinct possibility of th„ office bein/ called to accoujit 
a.nd bei-i_ mace to .pive somotiraes embari'assin, , ex'^lanatiohs of the 
departures from, a.;' justment standa.rfs, ConvorFcly, the i''.ca. v,'as 
^'onorated that the efficiency of tno various offices "-oul.V be juc-.ged 
by the n-urnber of cased re-ocrtcd as adjusted -:ac. the anoruit of restitu- 
tion ma.de "oj cr.ployoi'S to their -..orhcrs throvi/.h the efforts of the 
"varticular office. 

This served as a yctj iiiirortant ;osycholOt,ical factor in causing 
all field offices to raise txieir inMvidu-'l '^.tandards of a".just:.;ent 
and to become more an \ more active an". thoroTit';,h in the searching' out 



('^) Ldnu.tes of G7td. meeting::, reb-n.-La::7 9, 1934. See riol". Division filc?s. 

(**) The development of the Board's -lolicy to require penalty rates in the 
case of illoi^al overtLrie --'ill be c^iscusrci. in the sv.bseapj.ent sections 
of this clia.pter devote", to a treatment of the crea.tion of stanc'.ards of 
adjustment. 



9861 



-.21. 



e.nC. coriecci-.:^ oi viole.tions of coC.e laoor ;;rcvisioi:s. 

Althoiv --. r.ot ircctly trecealDlfc tc !■ , nevertheless, it i-. inter- 
esting to :^o':e th?.t tnis official rns/aiiestation of chr.nic in. ^T-jtist- 
mcnt nolic:' Ft- coinci '.ent?.! vith the cr'^'vtxon of the office of 
Assistant Inninistrrton fon Tielc". ;.:ininistration. (*) The nerly 
esta'olishoL. --oeition carnie-". v-ith it tiis fuaictions of sroervision over 
the cxccntio'-. cf nolicies L.oveniin, co::oli?.nce, enforcement, ?.n:. 
c'oi'.c a-ithonit" on animation; the cco:.'-'i"''ation of the InVii-sti-:^ Divi- 
sions ' ith the Conrpliance an". Liti^atio'.; Divir-ions; an", the LTa.hing 
ant", orocation of opei^atin^-, nlans for the r.evolo"')::icnt of fielJ. com- 
pliance ?n.". fiol,". agencies. 

.;lt abcv.t tl-..is time also, th.^ v.-orf. "ciy.utp'blo" vas -".rop-joc. in 
describing xcstitution. (**) I'lel . Letter i::iJ G;-'Cah:s of "full 

rcstit-o.tion. "(***) The use of the vori". "oquitahlc" in connection 
with rG<:titv.tion soons to ha.vo 'ooe:i vcli^^iorsly avoided "by the Com- 
pliance Tivisicn (exce":t in thoso fe..' cases of c:'.trcmc financial in- 
ability, etc. I'here co.'Tproaiscs v/cre -er r.ittcd) (****) fi-on; th^.t tine 
on. (*****) 

The policy of arjiistmont of coml^ints v.-as finally stated in 
the Of-"ice la.nual, III, 4111 (liarch ',7, I'^GG) , -s follov7s: "'.To 
cs-SG ma.y be filed a.s adjuste". u'l.lesc: rostitntion has boon made to 
the extent rcenie''" just end onuitcaLle b.;. tlio Cor.nliance D:.vision." 

It has already been shovn ti^.t t"ne "ertent "ceued just and 
equitadole 03/ t^ie Co-.roliance Division" '-as full restitution to all 
eiiTployees, er.cc .t in those e::traorc inarj' cases v.'herc corpromise settle- 
ments v^ere -^err.itted. (******) A:'. e::clv.sive, special procediire was 
finally established for this iptcer ty>o of a:"j-astment. (*******) 

(*)Office Or .er .:..: (early' Jua'ie, ISVl). 

(**)See note page 13, si'pra. 

(***)?ield L^ttcr 133, p. 4. 

(****)DiscusF>d in c::a;ter V, Section 9. 

(*****)The term ''eq_v.i table restitution" re-oc urs in th.e Office lianu^.l, (CoJe 
Axithority Or.„,anizat:.on) , III, IJlG.^ol, ^hich states the policy to be, 
"Upon determination of a violatio:., the cor.ii".iitteo na.y consider the 
compliant adjusted if the rosponr'ent mrhes enuitable restitf.tion and 
gives satisf?ctory assurance of --resent and future coripliancc. " Compare 
this vdth the strtement of policy, prepared 01. the Co;:nliance Division, 
conce-ined in the Cifice hanua.l, III, 4100. C' '.n.". dill, mentioned in the 
text immediately follovdn^., 

(******)Sec note page 20 , supra. 

(*******)Fiel:: letter 104-, p. ,3. 

D851 



-22- 



Ths coriT-iptior. of this strict ;;olicy of aCjustmcnt ''ill oc 
shown l-?.tor V-iv/.er ?. 'J-isciission of the practico of dropping cases. 
Scctiou 7 - The (' e\- pl y meri of gita"(".ai-c.s of a>f_,i\istment . Having 

consi-j'-croO. the v.ef iiiition an;" ■o"tU''poses of the ac-j\istnent and tho 
devolopiUent of "olicies, it is '.ell to look at tho standards which 
were enpl-yed to i isiire that the Mrdlj,:-,^, of coraplaints wo-ald he 
fairly -Lmifo-.Ta and m accord v/ith the theor;^. 

Tho statement of the functionr- of the Compliance Division (*) 
in itself served as a ji;eneral gv.ide. By it the assurance of present 
and futiire co; pliance was rna.de necossc.ry in ?11 cases. 

Aside from tho definition of adjiit tmont (as shown in sec- 
tion 4 ahovc) s.yj" the statoiiient of the eleraeiits and f-ujactions of ad- 
ministration for cor.plia.nce ly '. eneral Johnr.on, (**) thei:c were no 
definite standards for the ad.j"ai;tn.;nt of wa^.jes and ho\irs violation 
imtil ri.^lc' letter 1I:.Z. Lef^nite stan-'an's for the adjustment of 
trade pra-ctice cases v/ere never introdv.ced. (***) Plowcver, Lia-ison 
Circ'O-ler 75 ^e.vQ indications of the st£.n;".ar'Ts to be followed in some 
casoB. 

The only pre-requisite to a.'juFtment in the form of a definite 
.-tandard to he met was contained, in Tiold Letter 2C (December 22, 1933), 
which provided that wnenevcr a coi'mlaint ap;nc-ared to be Justified, 
and the conrplainant hs.d lost his job hy reason of filing; it, reemploy- 
ment shoulc" be a conditior. precedent to closinj the ca.se. This was 
previon.s to dlxecutivc Order 6711, :,;?y 15, 1G34-, definitely prohibiting 
discrimination a£,ainst complaining- employees. 

Closely interrelated v.-ith the development of the definition 
and policy of adjustment, there were evolved standards for the closure 
of c-ses of "•'articv.lar throes of viol-ations. Thiis lie.s been treated 
briefly in the forc{^oini. section ori the .'.evelopment of policy. 

V/ith the growth of the idea in tne field tliat it must he made 
tinprofi table to violate codes, tliere v/as a natv.i-al tightening of 
requirements for considering., a case satisfactorilv adjusted. For 
example, more attc}i.tion was ^.iven to restitution covering violations 
as to all cnrloyees. In ea';cs of ovoi'timo violations, the adjustm.ent 
v/as required to inclv.dc payment at time and one-third, or the rate 
specified in the coi^.e for overtime permitted incases of emergencies, 
etc. The latter Tractice T'as adopted y the vario"as field offices 

in the ha.ndlin^ of individ-j.a.1 cases, -. ithout definite insti-uctions 
prescribir vr. overti.mo rate. 



(*)Sce Note page 13 supra. 
(**)See ITotopage 13 supra. 

(***)Field Letter 1C3 (J?nua.ry 10, 1^33), p. 9. 
9861 



-2S- 



This .".ii-ecul-y reflects the sli,_;htr;' or.rlier trehC of the llation'-l 
Conr^lianro r,c?.rl". ^xs cussed in the section of tsAf, Chpz-ter ir,:.!of iately 
preceMn_. .• In one of the early cases wnere restora.tion of the 
r.lue Havle --as sou ht(*) the Cliriniian of the Hoar','., vho war- also 
i'ation-'l GoiT'^liayice Director, eirprcsfjof. the opinion of the loarc. as 
"beinc; tliart fv.li restitution ". u.rin; the entire perio''', of non-cornpli- 
ancc sho'o.lr "be r.ia.ce before the insi^^nia vere restore^'.. 

At ■?. coi.r^aratively ea.rly date al<"o, there v/as cons ice ref. the 
settin_, of staxr.arc". for acjustrnent of i?a::iim.ir. hour violrtions. 
The ITationrl Corioliance Boarc'. "isapprove.. the settin_ of a . efinite 
rate of •irj'nent for a^jviotnent, ar.r. enunciate;"', tie principle tlna.t 
no les' t'.-sr. the r-: tec -.'rovic'ef in the coes for lejal overtime \70ul',". 
"be acce-tec. ?.£ a satisfactoi"^' a 'juntaent. (**) The rii_:ht was reserved 
to i'lcreasc the prer.diu.i in -lartiCi.lar car.es. 

Shortl" thereafter the rorrd 'ir.a-'p--oved a proposed modifica- 
tion of th stan'ard that all restitution for ille£;al over-time 
shoul". be -.'t ? rate hi^h:.r th^a.n tliat for hour tolera-iccr> provi'ed 
in the co " .s. (***) 

This standard rern3.ir.ed in txso ujitil A'iril .35, 1'7A, v.dien the 
loard, iTavinj^ liad considerable intervenin, e1r7crier.ce ir. ha.ndlin^" 
cases, held in .a ca.se before it, 

"A,"ju-&tment for overtime eu-Tloyiient of an 
employee, whor-e em;-lay!ncnt in c::ccs'. of the hV.X" 
imvi:! ncurs is a viola,tion of the Co e should alv.ays 
•orovide pajonent to such employee at a higher rate 
tii?,n tfx t specified in the Co' e fc:' overtime ciTnloy- 
ment of an employee '-ho is permj.tted "oy the Code to 
•.'orli overtime. " (****) 

The for.'-i of a:jr.r.tment arreenent was then clia.n^jed to include resti- 
tution at ti. e and one-liT^lf for maximum hour violations. 



(*)Loft Candy S'ores, Inc., ".Tashin^ton, I.'C, res-on.Vent, minutes of 31st 
racitin'^, deccifoer 3, 1£'33. See also note page 18 pupra. Sec Field 
Division liles. 

(**)l',anutes of S7th meetiniT, .r.ebi-ua.:.-y ?, l'"d. See Field Division, 
files. 

(***)l.;inutcs of 71st meitin;;, Fehrurri^j.- 13,. I'S^-. .S,ee Field Division 
files. , ■ 

(****)jVmeric-?-n heat Co., Clevelan"., Ohio, res-^ondent, minri.tes of 122nd 
meetin^, .dpril 36, 1''.34. See Fiel '. Division filgs. 



9861 



-24- 

This announcement of a standard of adjustment is especially signi- 
ficant since the functions of the National Compliance Board had heen 
restated in Office Order 74 (l.arch £6. 1934) as including furnishing 
recora: lendations on ganeral compliance policy and procedure to the National 
Compliance Director. 

The Loard' s decision vas adopted by the Compliance Division in es- 
sentially" the same form and issued to the field as instructions in ./ield 
Letter 135 anc Supplementary henorrndum 1 to 3\illetin ?.(*) 

3y iviay, 1934, then, the National Compliance Board and the State 
Ofiicet; had- crerted standards of adjust'nent covering cases of violation 
of the minimum "age and maximum h^urs provisions of the codes, in addition - 
to the instruction contained in Field Letter 28 that reinstatement of an 
employee discharged for com-olaining, '-'here the complaint '/ras justified, 
should he made a condition precedent: to filing the case as adjusted, (** ) 
G-enerally speaking, as to trade practice violations and cases of non- 
compliance "ith lahor provisions other than '"'ages and hours, the only 
rea;o.irements for adjustment '"-ere present conformity to the codes and 
formal agreements to comply in the future. 

As a corrollary to the creation of standards of adjustment, was the 
more active interest talcen "by the state of i ices and the National Cora- 
pliaiico Board in the obtaining of compliance through the adjustment of 
cases. Thus, even "^here the complainant vrithdre',7 his complaint ■•ith 
assurances that conditions had been corrected, experience dictated the 
necessity of continuing to handle the case until convinced that a satis- 
factory adjustment had actually been made,(***) 

We have traced the development of the definition and purooses of 
adjustment and the evolution of the policy and standards to be folio- -ed 
in closing cases. Consideration should now be given to the instructions 
issued hy the Sompliance Division to its field offices regarding the 
handling of complaints. 

Section 8 - I n structions issued to the field offices . (****) The 
issuance of lield Letter 125 marked a ne'-' era in administration for cora- 
pliance. In it was contained what was regarded then as a strict set of 
rules for the adjustment of cases. In f g,ct , however, it ^-^as really a 
collection of the general principles previously develop&d in the field 
and in cases 

T*) Note (20), supra. 

(**) See J), supra; see also Cit3'- Bakery Co., De >^ueen, Ark. respondent, 

National Compliance Board minutes, 51st meeting, January 22, 1934, 
Sec Field Division files, 
(***)Braadway Motors, Inc., Chicago, 111., respondent, N8.tional Com- 
pliance Board Linutes, 97th meeting, March 22, 1934. See Field 
Division files. 
(****)The comnlete text of instructions issued to the field on st.andards 
of adjustment may be found in Supplementary iueraorandum Wo. 1; 
Field Letters 12o, 143,. 148, 160, 193 and 194; and Office Maziuol, 
III, 4110 et seq. . For obvious reasons this section is devoted 
merelj'- to a discussion of the general contents of those instructions. 

9851 



before the Ifetional Compliance Board, under which considerable discre- 
tion v,'r.s 1 rt in the field personnel in the application of those stan- 
dards . 

In reading the "Ivnnual for the Handling of Labor Complaints" it is 
important to remember tlmt, being based entirely on experience, it v/as 
both sound and practical, and was used as a bible by the field staff. 

Under the heading "What Constitutes Satisfactorj'- Adjustment of 
Complaints," there were enujnerated st?ndards of adjustment for violations 
of the labor provisions of the various codes. 

In correcting a minimun wage violation the respondent v/as required 
to ma>e fxill restitution of back wages due, based on the code minimiim 
for the entire period from the effective date of the code. (*). Lihe- 
wise, in adjusting raaxinram hour violations restitution was made at a 
higher rate than that for regular v'/orking hours. In the event overtime 
was permitted by the code in certain limited types of situations, such 
as emergencies and breal'downs requiring the protection of life or pro- 
perty, for which an overtime rate was specified, the restitution rate 
was supposed to be placed higher. (**). Ilov/ever, in piractice the 
field offices generally only placed the overtime restitution at time 
and one-third. 

TThere the respondent ha,d employed "learners" in excess of the num- 
ber permitted by the code, or ha.d improperly classified workers as' "handi- 
capped, " either failing to obtain the necessg.rj'' permit (***) or exceed- 
ing the allotted ratio, adjustment was ma,de by paying the deficiency in 
the code minimum T/age to those emr;loyees necessary to bring the respon- 
dent into compliance with the code requirements. (****) Restitution v:as 
made, in tLj case of "learners," usually on the basis of seniority in 
experience, and, in the case of "handicapped workers," generally accord- 
ing to actiial ea.rning capacity. 

Discretion ¥;a.s placed in the field offices in the application of 
the standards mentioned above in those cases where the employer seemed 
financially unable to m.alce full restitution, or where other circumstan- 
ces appeared to v/arrant an exemption from the standard requirements. 
(*****). In those special cases, adjustment for less than full resti- 
tution had to depend on the recommendation and approval of the Sta.te 
Adjustment Boards, (******) y/hose organization and f-unctions will be 
treated fully under the subsequent chapter on compliance procedure in 
the field. 

Standards of adjustment were also stated for those t-^/pes of cases in 
which money restitutions were not practica,ble . 

{*) Field Letter 125, p. 4. 
(**) Idem. 
(***) Under Executive Order 56C6-F (February 17, 1934) "handicapped" 
workers might be employed a,t less than the code minimum wage 
on the obta.ining of individual permits issued under regulations 
prescribed by the U.S. Department of Labor.- 
(H'***). Field Letter 125, p. 6. ' 
(*****) Field Letter 125, pt). 4 and 5. 
(******) Ibid, pp. 4, 5 and 34. 
9861 



-26- 

■ ■ r ., - . 

Where the employee had "been discharged, for filing a complaint, ad- 
justment included reinstatement and agreement not to discriminate against 
him, or where reinstate-.i^nt on a harmonious basis seemed impossihle, the 
cooperation of the respondent in secvjring a nev^ joh for the employee. (*) 

Where the violation was tixe failure to post code lahor provisions, 
(**) to l:eep proper records, (***) or the infraction of child lahor, home- 
work, safety, and other lahor provisions, (****) the standards of adjust- 
m.ent did not generally require an- form of restitution. The adjustment 
of violations of productive hours restrictions (strictly speaking trade 
practice provisions) was left entirely to the discretion of the field 
personnel, there oeing only sugfestions as to several possitle adjustment 
devices. (*****) 

In addition to the particular standards set forth a"bove, Field Letter 
125 contained general standards applicahle to all cases, xhus, ty full 
restitution was meant adjustment as to all em/ployees, regardless of whether 
or not they had complained. 

Moreover, there had to "be a formal statement of compliance, covering 
the points on a suggested form, and assurance that steps had "been taken to 
prevent recurrences of violations. (******) 

The field offices wore definitely instructed not to file cases as 
adjusted until all terms of the adju.stment had "been complied with, that 
is, for instance, imtil the pa;'TT.ent of the last installuient whore resti- 
tution w,qs made in se'-er-al pa^r^ents, unless sufficient security therefor 
had "been furnished. (=:■* + -***) 

Also Field Le1 tsr ]25 suggested that attempts he m^&e to have the 

respondents install and rgree T-c maintain adequate sets of records, so 

as to help insure future compliance. The iiiportance of this will he 
developed in later chapters. 

The standards of pdjustm.ent contained in Field Letter 125 were re- 
stated and included in S-ipplemertary i.iemorandura ilo. 1 to Bulletin No. 7, 
issued at the same time. It farther sumi'ned up the standards of adjust- 
ment hy the following statement: 

"If violations are discovered or admitted, evidence of proper 
adjustment must "be securedi as follovrs: 

"A. Evidence that the hours and wages of every gmployee (or if 
that is not practical, of certain specified classes of employees) 
have "been verified for the period in question either "by examination 



{*) IBID, pp. 5 


and 


15 








(**) Ihid, p. 5 


• 










(***) Ihid, p. 


8. 










(****) Ibid, p. 


7. 










(*****) Field I 


ett 


2T 


125, 


p. 


7. 


(******) ibid. 


pp. 


13 


and 


17 




(*******) Ibid, 


p. 


17 


• 







3861 



-27- 



"of the employer's hours and v/a,;'e records or of certified 
copies tiiereof ^ ■ If the employer has not kept such records, 
he should at lenst "he re raired to file a certified copy 
of his payroll, ■ 

"B. In all cas.es involving the paym.ent of "back wages, 
evidence that restitution has actually "been made should 
"be required. 

"C. The employer should "be required to file a v^ritten 
statement that he has corrected past violations aiid 
that he will comply in the future." (*) 

With a few minor amplifications of the instructions contained in 
Field Letter 125 and Supplementary r.Iemortuidum No. 1, those standards 
continued intact until the issuance of Field Letter 193 on January 10, 
1935. In the meantime, of course, the further refinement of these 
standards and the development of their application was continued through 
the dajr "by day experience , of the Compliance Division in handling com.plaints. 



s 
made ad- 



Field Letter 193, to a large measure, repeated the instruction 
theretofore issued, "but placed tnem in more emphatic form and made 
herence to them more o"bligatory on the part of the State Offices. 

A E2:eneral rule of thTim"b v;as annouraced in the snape of a definition 
of adjustment: 

"A case is adjusted when the employer is in full compliance 
and restitution has "been made." (**) 

Simple as this definition was, read in the light of field, exper- 
ience and the development of the methods and policies of the Compliance 
Division it was pregnant with meaning. It was taken literally and full 
significance v^as given every word ia denoting the "basic policy of 
adjustment. 

At this time form.s of certificates of compliance for "both la"bor and 
trade practice complaints, and agreement to make restitution in la"bor 
cases, similar to those used hy the old National Compliance Board and 
the Compliance Council, were adopted for field use. (***) 

Changes were made in the standards of adjustment in that one and one- 
half times the regular rate of pay or the code mdnimum, v/hichever was 
higher, was definitely stated to "be the m.inim\im rate in computing resti- 
tution for violations of maximum hours; (****) and piece-workers were 
required, to "be compensated for all plant hours d^oring which they were on 
their employers' premiises and availa'ble for work, unless the respondents 
were a"ble to esta"blish the employees' presence w-^s not required and they 
had prior notice to that effect. (*****) 



(*) Su; joj. ement ary Memorandum ITo. 


1 to Bulletin I'Jo. 


7, 


p. 4. 


(**) Field Letter 193, p. 5. 








(***) Field Letter 193 pp. 8, 9, 


11, 12, 13, 14. 






(****) Ibid., p. 7 








(*****) Ihid., p. 8 









9861 



In Field Letter 194 (Jamiary 18, 1935) a further i*estriction wps 
placed on the applicati6n of standards of adjustment. A new, definite 
procedure was created for the adjustment of cases with less than full 
restitution. (*) Under prior instructions such special cases were left 
to the discretion of the State Offices on recommendation and approval of 
the State Adjustment Boards. (**) This nev; procedure, however, was ex- 
clusive and was designed to strengthen the standards of adjustment by- 
making the exceptions to the usual requirements more difficult to obtain. (***) 

However, since this procediore tended to interfere with the State 
Offices' practice in suspending action on certain types of cases where 
deemed advisable, and adversely affected the use of State and Local Ad- 
justment Boards, it was not strictly followed by the field offices. (****) 

In Majrch,'1935 the instructions previously issued by the Compliance 
Division were compiled and included in the nev; Office Manual. (*****) 
Inasmuch as there was no revision or change in the standards of adjust- 
ment after Field Letter 194, a fiirther discussion of the contents of the - - 
Office Manual on this subject is not deemed necessary. 

In the last few months of MHA there v/as a slackening of the strict 
application of these standards in certain tj7jes of cases. This was evi- 
dnet in the service trades and in some other intrastate industries, es- 
pecially in states where the covirts were not favorably disposed toward 
the codes. This apparently backward step in policy was the product of 
both expediency and e:-cperience. A further discission of this aspect, 
however, is postponed until consideration has been 'given to the procedure 
developed md followed and study has been m.ade of the various influences 
entering into the historical, growth of the Compliance Division. 

(*) Field Letter 194, p. 2, .et seq. Similar procedure was established 
for the Regional Compliance Councils, Field Letter 193, pp. 6 and 7. 
(**) Field Letters 125, 143, 148, Supplementary Memorandum No. 1. 

See also p. 36,_supra. 
(***) This was indicated as the purpose by the following quotation from 

Field Letter 194, p. 2: " ADJUSTi.FrIT OF CASES FOR LESS THAiJ FULL 
RESTITUTIOlt . It is the policy of the Compliance Division not to consider 
violations of labor provisions adjusted except upon the payment of back 
wages to employees in the full amount necessary to make restitution for 
past violations, in addition to securing present compliance. In some 
cases it is not feasible to make adjustments upon this basis. The follow- 
ing procedure will hereafter govern tne settlement of cases involving a 
departure from the above policy." 
(****) This is more fully discussed later, under those sections of 

Chrpter V relating to the compromising and dropping of cases and 

the use of Adjustm.ent Boards. 
(*****) Office Manual, III, 4110 et seq. 



9861 



(Author's note: In this chapter little has "been said concerning 
the adjustment of trade practice viol-itions. This was done purposely 
for several reasons. In the first place, standards of adjustment were 
never developed for trade practice cases and a far greater numher of 
such complaints were handled, hy Code Auithorities rather than ty NSA 
field offices. In most cases in vmich they were concerned, the state 
offices acted only in an advisory capacity to ,and to supplement the 
activities' of the Code Authorities. 

On the other hand, emphasis has "been laid on the labor phase of 
compliance "because: 

(a) There were many more lahor complaints than trade practice 
complaints filed and therefore it was more necessary to develop policies 
and procedure for this type of case. 

(h) Since labor violations fell into certain vjell-defined categories, 
whereas unfair trade practices were variegated ooth in number and 
character, it was more practical to have a set of general rules of pro- 
cedure and broad policies for the former class. 

( c) Closely alcin to (b) , is that there was no equitable or prac- 
ticable way of making restitution for trade practice x-iolations except 
where the code had a provision for some sort of liquidated .damages . 
Administratively, it was impossible to determine the amount of the 
damage occasioned by a violation, and often difficult to ascertain who 
v/ere the injured parties. Hestitution for labor violations, however, 
was a matter of corrrputing back wages due c^ccordirg to the prescribed 
formulae. Tlie aggrieved parties were the employee, who was theoretically 
compensated, and the competitor, who gained indirectly v/nere the com- 
petitive advantage was removed by the respondent paying back wages.) 



9861 



-30- 
Chapter IV - The Origin ^nd Development of Field Offices 

Section 1 - The e.sta"blishn]ent of temporary offices . During the first 
few i'lonths after the National Inaustrial Recovery Act' Vas signed by the 
President on June 16, 1933, almost the entire energies of the KRA'-'ere 
devoted to the task of code luaking. Since it was soon seen tha,t the '■ ■ 
sl0'.7 nrocess of foruralating sxii aporoving codes for the v&fious tr-'des 
and industries ':^ould .take many months, there was announced in Julj?-, '1933 ,' 
a temporary program known as the President's Eeemplopient Agreement, 

As a. pa,rt of this KRA. program there were necessary, first, an in- 
tensive national -nuLlicity campaign, and, second, a system of ^minis- 
tration for the handling of complaints and petitions for exemption from 
the Agree'ient. 

■., ; ' Both these D"bjectives, it is clear, required a large field force. 
Because of the enormity and emergency nature of the task the NRA, through 
an arrangement rdth the Department of Commerce, utilized as the core for 
such organization the District Offices of the Bureau of Foreign an,d Domes- 
tic Conmerce, y^hich had long been engaged in activities for the promotion 
of and assistance to trade aid ird\:.btry, (* ) The balance of the organi- 
zation was then made up of _ voj.unvaiy ^-'orkers and agencies, including 
State and District Recovery Boards, Local Compliance Boards, and various 
local com'Qittees, 

Thro-agh cofiferences and oral agreement bet-'een the two Government 
agencies, the District Office staffs of the bureau '-'ere loaned to' NRA 
work, Jn this connection a. liaison office was established in the Bureau 
bet'^een NRA and the District Offices. In illustration of the activity 
of the Btireau in the NRA program, it has been stated that un until Decem- 
ber 2, 1935, employees of the Bureau worked 11,202 days for NRA at an 
estimated annual cost of $150, OoO. (**) 

In addition, many former employees of the Bureau of Foreign and 
Domestic Commerce, whose services h?d been terminated on July 15, 1933 
for economy reasons, were recalled tc work directly for NRA on its pay- 
rolls. 

On July 11, 1933, the District Managers were called to Washington 
for a two weeks period for the purpose of instruction and training in the 
new NRA program. It was during the latter part of this conference that 
the NRA campaign '"as announced and actual responsibility for field organ- 
izational a.ctivity was virtually placed on the District Managers for their 
respective districts. (*** ) The work of the District Offices during this 
period and until the creation of the Compliance Division on October 26, 
1933 by Office Order 40, was almost entirely of a. promotional character. 
It is to be remembered that the Local Compliance Boards for the handling 
of NEA co,.i]-)laints '-ere not begun to be established until after Septe.aber 



(*) France, "Role of Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce in NRA 
Frogram" (December 6, 1933), pp. 1, 3. See files ct N. H. Engle, 
Assistant Director, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. 

(**) Ibid,, p. 9. 

(***) Ibid., p. 3. 



9861 



-si- 
ll, 1933, exxd thus the compliance phase of the vrorl' "began only aljovit 
one month "before the District Managers '^ere rrip.de District Compliance 
Directors, a week prior to Cfiice Order 40, It was not until Octoher 
and ilovember of 1933 that most of the local Compliance Boards '^ere au- 
thorized to operate. 

Bearing .in mind this history of activity of th e District Offices 
of the Bureau during the initial months of ¥.?A, it is not surprising to 
note that on October 19, 1933, the administration, rith the approval of 
the Secretary of Commerce, appointed the District Managers as District 
Compliance Directors in the field organization of twenty-six offices of 
the new Compliance Division which was ahout to be established, (*) At 
this time there was also issued a set of instinictions to the new District 
Compliance Directors on the handling of code complaints. At the time 
of their appointment as District Compliance Directors, the District Man- 
agers weTe furlourhed. by the Bureau for three months and placed on 1>TRA 
payrolls. This arrangement was intended only to be temporary pending 
the establishment of a, perjaanent government code compliance system, ■"'hich 
was finally done in Januarjr, 1934. On the latter date there was created 
a systen of State NRA. Compliance Offices and State Directors '^'ere appoint- 
ed from outside the existing organization. This nev system was initiated 
with a meeting of all State Directors in '^fashington the first of February, 
1934, At this meeting, ^-'hich lasted several days and was composed of a 
series of group conferences and discussions, ■ the State Directors were 
infoiTned a,s t , the general outline of organization and policies. Specific 
questions 'jith relation to complie.nce work ^ere also taken up. In add- 
ition, the State Directors had been instructed in advance to bring with 
them memoranda of local field problems for joint discussion. T^'hile the 
advontages of this tyrje of meeting are obvious, most of the value was 
lost because 'the State Directors '-ere ne'^ to !I?A compliance work a"^d for 
the raain inexperienced in industrial regulation. 

The reasons, other thrn the need for a full-time government agencj^^ 
to adjust complaints, for the separation of IL'tA District Compliance 
Directors from the Bureau of Poreign and I'omestic Commerce are summed 
up as follows: 

"It is felt that as compliance directors the district managers 
shouJ.d not be associated with Buforcom work and thus avoid any cri- 
ticisra which might be directed at these men if they continued as dis- 
trict office managers while acting as comoliance directors. " (**) 

This statement took recognition of the fact that the work of the 
Bureau had been chiefly the promotion of trade and relations had been 
almost entirely with industry rather than with labor. Also, in NRA 
work, the Bureau offices had been active in stimulating the formation 
of trade a^ssociations and other business groups, and it was therefore 
felt that accusations of partiality might come alike from labor and 

(*) In h'HA Studies Special Exhibit i;7ork Materials #77, 
(**) France, "Hole of Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce in NRA 
Program" (December 6, 1933), p. 75. See files of N. H. Engle, 
Assistant Director, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 



9861 



those portions of industry not organized ujider these tr^de associations. 

The iriport'ijice of the influence of the Bureau in shaping the poli- 
cies aiid procedure of the Complipnce Division vill he snovm in succeed- 
ing sections of this and in the follOYrinp: chapters. It is sufficient 
to point out here that prior to the State Office system the field ras 
almost entirely staffed hy former I'ureau employees. During the remainder 
of compliance history. nany key positions, both in the State and Regional 
Offices, uere filled by these men. 

Section 2 . - Internal Organization - early developmen t. In order to 
understano. properly the acministrative efforts of KRA. it is importajit 
to knou the mechanics by i"hich it ^-as sought to accomplish full com- 
pliance ■•ith- the lar. For just as the successful administration of pay 
neT7 and complicated set of regulations., such as the codes, must ultimatelj'- 
descend on pujlic understanding and support, so also is it based on the 
practical psoects of application. 

This naturally brings us to a consideration of the internal T-'ork- 
ings of the field offices, the primary media of contact ^rdth business, 
so as to view the facilitj.es for educating employers and bringing them 
into conforaiity with the codes. 

Digressing for the, moment, it is important to remember what has 
been pointed out before, that the field vas distinctly non-homogeneovis. 
Field offices varied -widely in their methods of approach to particular 
proble.is, their internal organization, and their very fundamental concept 
of adjilstiiient. These variations, of course, vrere due primarily to dif- 
ferences in personalities, and in social and economic outlooks. They 
Fere also caused by the nature of the offices' daily associations with 
business, labor and other outside influences. 

These differences in field offices were much more marked after the 
creation of the State Director system, probabl;: because the District 
Compliance Directors had served together as Dictrict Lanagers of the 
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, and therefore had a. fairly 
stnnda.rdi sed background. ( * ) 

Tnen the District Com.pliance Offices were established by Office 
Order ITo.40 (October 26, 1933), (**) their personnel consisted in a District 
Compliance Director, his assistant, a legal adviser (to be appointed), 
and clerical and stenographic help.(***) Legal advisers were appointed 
some two or three '^eeks later. (****) Shortly thereafter the larger and 
more i;,iportant offices ^^ere allov-ed very slight increases in personnel, 
usuall;- in conjunction "ith the local Compliance Boards. The appointments 

(*) In spite of this heterogeneous quality, for the sake of convenience 
the field must be spoken of as a unit, except in particular cases. 

(**)The District Compliance Directors were actually appointed on October 
19, 1835 by letters from the Administrator. Instructions on adjust- 
ment were issued the same day and ami^lified in Liaison Circular 75 
• (October 20, 19o3) . 

('***) Liaison Circular 75, 

(****) Field Letter 5 (November 10, 1933), 



9861 



. -33- 

were all on a. per diem basis since the system of organization was re- 
garded as temporary. 

At this time there was no clear definition of duties either by 
Washington or by the field offices themselves. Generally speaking, of 
course, the District Compliance Directors had been charged with the re- 
sponsibility of obtaining compliance with the various codes and (vrorking 
in conj vine t ion with the local Comtjliance Boards) ■r'ith the President's 
Reemplo;^Tnent Agreement. (* ) 

Actually, the District Compliance Directors laid stress on public 
relations nork, rather than adjustment. Thus, their energies and the 
time of their assistants, T-ere devoted primarily to fostering relations 
with trade associations and other business groups, and to a lesser de- 
gree, labor organizations. They also spent confiderable time in assist- 
ing the organization of local code authorities and in publicizing through 
the press, by radio, and by public addresses, the benefits and aims of 
NSA, and in attempting to stir up a fervor among business men for sup- 
port of the recovery Program, 

This idea of the District Office -neriod that NEA compliance L-^as 
almost excliisively a selling campaign was a natural carr3/"-over from the 
earlier feverish days of the President's -i^eeraployment Agreement drive. 

Because of the nature of this activity, and the la.ck of instructions 
from Washington, it is next to impossible to determine with any degree 
of accuracy the functions of the various field officials, except as 
broadly stated above. 

There is a partial exception to this lack of definitions of duties, 
honever. The Legal Adviser, it was fairly clear, '^as to examine com- 
plaints of code violations for legal sufficienc;' and to pass on all legal 
questions arising in the offices, which did not require final interpre— 
tation-;of codes. (**) 

The a.ssignment of responsibility to handle and adjust complaints, 
which was properly the primarj?- duty of the Compliance Division, was 
left in a. nebulous state of disposal. Adjustment of complaints was 
usually left to members of the clerical staff, assisted sometimes by the 
Legal Adviser, and the District Compliance Director or his assistant, 
in a soL-t of hodge-podge arrangement. Again, practices in different 
field offices varied so greatly that it is impossible to generalize uith 
more than a fair degree of accuracy. 

(*) Office Order 40; Liaison Circular 75; "Regulations for Adjustment", 
etc. (October 19, 1933); ""illiam E. Davis, "N.R.A. Plans for Code 
Compliance" (December 5, 19S3), 

(**) "?Le;2rL).lations for the Adjustment of District Compliance Directors" 
etc.- (October 19, 19S3). Office Order 53 definitely placing the 
au.thority to issue interpretations in the Industry Divisions was 
not issued until December 29, 1933, but it was generally under- 
stood prior to the date of that order that there was no authority 
in the field to issue final rulings or interpretations, 

9S61 



"34- 

Su-fxice to say, that in the better field offices, v-'hich later -ere 
to pipy -"a:, iricreasingly irivortant role in shaping .--eneral Dolicier, of 
adjustment and procedrare, although orgaJiization ras undecided, a ?ti-on'^or 
err.-phasis -as laid on the rdjustment function. Thus, a few of the Le;:;al 
Advisers -ent beyond their resular c3.exined, duties- of ac vising on IcTal 
questions, to delve into the actual adjustment of complaints. This ^'as 
also true ¥;ith a snail ininoritj'- of District Compliance Directors and 
their ,'i.Esi ^tants. This' fact is irnnorttnt because from this class of 
field -oersunnel rere later dra tl a number of the Labor Comoliance Officers 
and Trade Practice Compliance Officers, and, with the inception of the 
Re;Vional system in December, 19o4, soi.ie members of the Regional staffs. 
This personnel angle is mentioned because it was probably the most im- 
portant internal influence on the develo"oment of the Compliance Division. (*) 

Section 5 - Development of internal orft-anization under- the State Office 
system . (**) Pollowing the creation of the State Office system, discussed 
under Section 1, tht, re was a marked development of the field staff. 
This r-as forecast in a statement by the Hftional Compliance Director on 
December 5, lS5o,(***) in '-hich he c'escribed briefly the new organiza- 
tion along state lines^ sayin-^ that each Sta.te Director would have a. suf- 
ficient staff of assistants and adjusters to develop the facts and ad- 
just the comT)laints which were filed. Unfortunately, the requisite fvll 
com^olement of personnel was never realized. 

The staffs of the District Offices were absorbed by the new State 
•Offices, There -as therefore, 'little difference between the two s'^'-stems 
at first, except in form. However, since the State Directors were 
practically all local men^ and chosen from ^nanr valks of life, the in- 
jection o.l' new personalities soon made the State Office sj'stem novel in 
fa.ct. 

The State Offices were intend.ec to be a "permanent governmental 
regional adjustm.ent system. " (****) It is not surprising, therefore, to 
note that the plan provided for a. more complots tnd' conjilex 6rg,anization, 
The Di-rfcrict Com-Dliance Directors became Office Managers in the old. 
offices and equivalent positions were created in the new offices; the 
Legal Adv:' ;^-ers and the clericeJ and stenographic staffs continued in 
their sa: u capacities; and in addition, under the State Director, Frere 
add-ed the "oositions of Labor CoLVjliance Officer, Trad.e Praxtice Cor:oliance 
Officer, rnd several field adjusterslC***"^* ) Tnile these latter "oositions 



(*) l^ievertheless, the sa.lesraanship feature of compliance was alwa;,'"s an 
important one. There was merely the cuestion of placing it in its 
T^roper relationship , to the adjustment of violations. 

(**) The first insti-uctions to State Directors, relative to their func- 
tions and the internal, organization of the lield offices, ""'ere con- 
tained in letters sent to them on their ap'^ointment by the Admin- 
istra^tion, 

(***) "Villiajn H. Davis, "N.R.a. plans for Code Compliance." In N3A 

Stuc.ies Special Exhibits Work Materials #77, 
(****) Idem (*****) Bulletin Wo. 7, p. 11. 



9851 



-35- 



"5laS 

Director 



State Adjtistnent' 
Board 



Ezecutl'VB 
Secretaiy 



Legal 
Adrlaer 



Lalx>r Compliance 
Officer 



Legal 
Adviser 



J 



Trade Practice 
Co mpliance Officer 



Office I 



Clerical and 
Stenographic 
3i££l 



Field 
AdjtiBter 



Note: Co]i9>are tidis chart with the organisation scheiae as 

later developed in its application (infra, pp. 59 - 62) » 



9861 



vere erected at the ■be^'lnning of the State Office system, in many in- 
stances some '"fere not filled for several '"'eeks and months after that, 
and, in the case of smaller offices, the functions of several positions 
were alivays exercised "oy one man. 

Bulletin Ko. 7 marked the transition of the organic development of 
the Compliance Division from the District Office stage to the second 
period. The idea that the adjustment of complaints, as against a mere 
sales campaign, ivas a necessary ingredient of compliance, was given real 
impetus. In creatin.^: an enlarged staff for the field offices, Bulletin 
No, 7 described the functions of the various nev? positions in such a way 
as to lep.ve little room for mere public relations '-'ork, except as inci- 
dental to the adjustment of complaints. (*) 

The State Office internal orgsnization ^as provided in Bulletin 2To, 
7, '.7hich -as amplified by Field Letter 69, issued February 24, 1934, (**) 

The Dlan provided that the staff was to be headed by the State Di- 
rector, ^'ho served in a dual capacity as State Director of the National 
Emergency Council and State NRA Compliance Director. In the latter iDOsi- 
tion he r'as chs.rged rith the duty of obtaining compli.ance rith all code 
provisions and with the administrative responsibility of the office, (***) 
although in actuality these functions ^-^ere performed by the State Directo: 
in but few offices. 

iText in general authority to the State Director was the Office 
Manai^er (whose title was changed to Executive Assistant in Field Letter 
69), His d.uties included oversee in,, the general fimctioning of the of- 
fice; lirndling all matters of office routine and details a,s to space, 
personnel and equipment; assisting the State Director in maintaining 
relations with the press and in public relations work; serving as exed- 
utive secretary to the State Adjustment Board; handling all trade prac- 
tice compliance ma,tters wh9re there ^'as no Trade Practice Compliance 
Officer. (****) 



(*) N.n.A. EuJ.letin No. 7, p. 11, "These State Directors are charged 
v:ith the duty of adjusting, '"henever possible, all code violations 
not adjusted by Industry-- and to that end, under these Regulp.tions, 
vrill do everything within their -power to secure compliance through 
education and explanation"; also, "Until — (field adjusters are 
appointed), the Labor Compliance Officer and the Trade Practice 
Compliance Officer may act as their o^-n adjusters. The Office 
Manager and the Legal Adviser "aay also act in this capacity." 

(**) On the opposite page is a ciir rt showing the f-onctional organization 
^,'hich was esta.blished. 

(***) N.Z.A. Bulletin i"o, 7, p. 11, "The State Director is responsible 
for all action talcen by his staff tuider these Regulations and may 
make such office rules as he deems desirable for the supervision 
of the activities of his staiff, " 

(****) Field Letter 69, p, 1. 



9861 



-37- 

The Labor Compliance •fiicer was charged with all matters concerning 
compliance vith the labor provisions of the various codes, and reported 
dircctlj-- to the State Direcior(*). 

Although not so definitely stated, it generally understood that the 
Trade Practice Compliance Officer occupied a position similar to the 
Labor Compliance Cfficer, with respert to trade practice compliance 
matters. 

Under both labor and trade practice compliance officers was a staff 
#f Pield Adjusters wh» ce duty it was to investigate and adjust all com- 
plaints assigned t* them by the Labor and Trade Practice Compliance 
efficers.(**) 

There was also a clerical and stenographic staff, which was under 
the supervision of the Office iwanager or Executive Assistant. 

The position of the Legal Adviser with relation to the two Compliance 
Officers and the »ffice Manager was never clearly determined. Generally 
spealcinifi, he was supposed to report direct to the State Director, but 
advised all members of the staff on legal matters. In addition to the 
functions of rendering advice and opinions and examining complaints, (*** ) 
his duties included the adjustment of complaints, -acting (****) as legel 
adviser to the Stat* Adjustment Board, (*****) and preparing all unad- 
justed complaints f«r transmittal to the National Compliance Director 
for further action. (******) 

In addition to the regular staff, there was a State Adjustment 
Board, composed of an impartial chairman and equal representation of 
employees and employers. This body's chief function originally was to 
hear appeals from decisions of the State Director's staff and to deter^ 
mine disputed questions of fact. It acted purely in an advisory capacity 
to the State Director. It's members served wi :hout pay. The functions, 
development and us»s of the State Adjustment Boards will be treated in 
detail later. 

The members of the staff were stated by Field Letter 69 to have 
distinct and separate duties. The State Director was charged with de- 
temining the necessary lines of at'ministrative authority to insure ful- 
fillment of his responsibility of obtaining complete code compliance 
within hiji particular jurisdiction. Thus, it is seen that the original 
plan of organization provided for a lyibor compliance division, a trade 
practice compliance division, and an office management division, all 
heading up to and under the diredt sui^ervision and authority of the State 
Director, It should be understood that these diivifions of internal oi^ 
ganization related more to functions than personnel, 

(*) Idem, 

(**) Bi^lletin Fo, 7, p. 19, 
(***) &a-ora, p. 33. 
(****) B-oJ-letin ¥.o, 7, p. 11. 
(*****) Ibid., p. 16, 

(******) Ibid., pp. 16, 17, providing for the procedure on unadjusted 
cases. It was understood tha.t this was the function of the Legal Ad- 
viser, 

9861 



~ 38 ~ 

The a;opoint-nent' of- thQ ,ji£V7, personnel, except the Labor Compliance 
Officer, was vested in thevSt,Qte Director, sulDJect to the approval of 
the Compliance Division in Washington. (*) The Labor Compliance Officer 
was selected by the ".Rk and the U. S. Department of Labor jointly, the 
latter agency lart,'ely influencing the choices. Theoretically, the 
appointment of PieM .Adjusters was made by State Director's upon the 
advice and reconrnendations of the Labor Compliance Officers. (**) 
Actually, Pield Adjusters were appointed by some State Directors without 
such recommendations and without regard to the qualifications of the 
appointees to fill the i)ositions. 

It is quickly apparent that such a situation' was inherently troubie- 
some for the Con.pliance Division. This first impresfeion is justified, 
for there later developed out of this intangible conflict of authority* 
decided and serious rifts between the Labor Compliance Officer and the 
State Director in many of the offices. 

This internal disruption was heightened by a sometimes violent dis- 
agreement on adjustment policies. Since the State Directors, by virtue 
of their functions and general respons,ibilities, had' ''little to do with 
the every day experience of h.andling complaints an"d making adjustments, 
they tended tp underemphasi^e the importance of the restitution element. 

Ttiis situation, of co,uXiSe, greatly hajnpered the efficiency of those 
offices in which it existed. It 'was partially overcome by oral instruc- 
tions from NHA Field Representatives, traveling out of Washington, 
■ virtually placing the entire responsibility and actual a.uthority for the 
selection of Pield Adjusters in the Labor Compliance Officers. This 
action occurred in the Iste spring of 1934, just preceding or about the 
time of the issuance of Field Letter 125, which gave official recognition 
to the importance of the restitution element in adjustment. This develop- 
ment, then, really belongs in the beginning of the third phase of the 
Compliance Division's history. 

It must here again be reiterated v;ith emphasis' that the metamorphosis 
which has been just described did not take place in all the field offices, 
or probably even- in a majority of them. It is important to remember 
•that in a fair proportion of the field offices the staff was more unified 
in its policies of procedure raid adjustment ,- which were realistically 
defined. Selections of new personnel, • particularly Field Adjusters, and 
the administrative organization reflected the balanced judgment of the 
entire executive staff. In contradistinction, a like number of field 
offices did not fall in the first-mentioned "dissension class" because 

(*) Field Letter 56 (February 30, 1G34)-,- p. 1. : , 

(**) Letter of January 18, 1934, from Donald He^shaw, Field Liaison 

Officer, Compliance Division, to the variolas State NRA Compliance 
Directors, "We do not consider it advisable to appoint any Field Adjusters 
for your office until the Labor Compliance Officer has been assigned to 
you. He should be of invaluable assistance to you in helping to select 
proper personnel for this important phase of the work." In NRA Studies 
Special Exliibits Work Materials Ho. 85. 



9 861 



-39- 

the La'bor Comi3liance Officers, or other subordinate members of the staff, 
were either '"•eaiker in their convictions or not inclined to a progressive 
development of field techniques and field policies. 

The rift het^een the Labor Compliance Officer and the State Director, 
however, occurred in a sufficient munbcr of offices to rank it as axi 
important situation since out of it cane a major transformation in the 
internal oi-gajiization of the field. 



9351 



Secti.;n 4 - Laoer CcYc l Ty on t \3n.>r tlie St?.cr G fi 'ice S v stein . By the "be- 

i.-.- ._ :■■: ;:'.j r'a r or 'f l?.""-, t/e C" rli'incu Division hr.c pro/.resped 
id,r i-.-. its -^rii'auic cv: liiti •vi. It ha. ;:.j-aEt officially tfhcn C0;i,niz ::ice 
of tnc c"i£.:if;es .i.-., adjustment pjlicy and>~':l pr jri-alii^.atocl r>t ir cards t3 be 
foll.ovc.c'. li- the fid' i- thj: acjur^t .''.o-. t ;f cor.c violrti ns. The ex- 
periences 1' i^HA. in C'loiiance j-dninistn^.ti :;n l^d Do^^un tT cryst- llize 
and :;U'l:e tV.erse]-v'e!7 f^ It in tncse fuv' ccrt-.in jth,.,r concrete rcfn-ras. 

In Washin^t -n, thcr.. w..,s crec-ted tne -f:'icc ^f Asc.istr.nt Adninis- 
tratjr f-'r Pield Acjninistr' tion, \7hosc Jnit v it - v.s t7 sir-iorvir-e co.rroli-.nce 
activiti-:s and to cQordin?,te the efforts ^s the Conpliancc Division vdth 
the Industry snd Liti:ati.n Divisions. (*) The s '•ster.i of tr.Tvcllinr':^ Field 
Ecproscnti-tives of thoCo'-pliance Divisi n, to i.rore closely sui.iervise the 
field stalf and to "brin,;; into riore intiinato rclationshi- '?dth the fashi; ;jton 
staff, \7as develoned i.nl co,i,ie into \7ldcr use. Thus, the Washington staff 
of the Compliance Division, as well ;.''S ;:eneral ncadcuarters of i^TA to a 
lesse:- de£:ree , c-'^:ac bo rerlize the intfort nee "f the field and t" l:'.y 
more stress -n field coi-iplirnco v/o:d:. 

T0i2,'etlir.r witn these devel op' ;cnt r ii "Ta'--hin£ct on cavnc cJia,n-;-es in 
the fielr' st:.ff , Additional Tield A.hiuf'tcr positions vrcre created to 
atter.vot to fill the cryl .^ no-, f r ,ui ad.cp.iiito staff f-^r ;he investi- 
i?;ation and.-adjiJ-stir.ent "i violati.ns. 

The nei-' Field Hepresent^ tives -■Iso lorhortoolc to re-train the staff? 
in the vario'us field offices and to inrprove the quality of the existing 
person .el. Conseq-uerLtly, sor^e rolaco'^icnt;' were Made, Thin improvei-ient 
of the quality ano size of th: field personriel occurred through the 
su;v:er o.nd fall of 19;-^4, 

In the appointr.iei'.t ^f rev Field Adj\istcrs, the Laloor Compliance 
Officers vrcre given m.r voice, althotig-h the o.uthoritj" to appoint personnel, 
:n the ap roval o, tn^ Cora-olfance Divisi --:i in T/ashirigton., remained in the 
State Dire I tors. As nas loe^'n nreviousl 'ojintLd ut , tie re yipis a tendency 
on the p.-.rt -f th.: Field E^piesent.'.tivcs ant,, the "ieldBr.anch of the Com- 
pliance Di'. isi:'n to ma. :e th Lo.bor COi.plfncc Ofiicer? autonomous in 
their p-rticulor field, (**) 

The emphrsis on the laloor co: P'lia.nce staffs in the or':anization of 
the field v;,as increr.sec" hy caa.oiges in the aeacs of the various offices, 
Durin,_; the third period jf aevelopment, frop. roughly June, 1904 a, ue 
to the i-.:creased .activity of the Hati nial !3:,icr,',ency Council, a numTocr -f 
State Directors served their NdA. covmections to devote their entire time 
to their h.H.C. duties, ■ n.'. for other personal reasons. By November, 
1934, a. comparotively s/.ia.ll nnmi-'er of original St. .te Director ap-ointecs 



(*) Ofii':^-c :Or^or 9^ (earf^d;i:_.e, 19"-;); s^o'-'dr'- n-,-21 su^-ira; ' " - '. 

(**) Uni"..!' Cirolianc.o oivisi na "emoo-an-'um f: (icctiftocr l'"-, 13.3o) matters 

concerni- ;: fno. ficl"' or^anis ti n' o- its -^^rsonocl -er^ t) he referred 

t-^ t.o^ ■:'icl' S.ctin, A-h-i-..istr aiv^^ Branch. Un: cr Office Or cr 3:; 
(April Id, 1934.) .the. j.Fiie.ld.Secti-n oms mac'e the Field Branch; see als: 
Office i'.iemorandum 180 (April IJ, 1934). 

9861 



-41- 

renainec" , 

In filling these v?.cancics tho C^npliaiice Division pursued the 
■Dolicy jf ap-Tointi-i^; the acao. ^f the 3f:ice fr:-. ineribcrs if the staff. 
Thus, Lah.or Compliance Officer?, Tr-.de Pr-,ctice Cy-pliance Officers, loc:: 
Executive Assistants, and, i;-, s -'■ le c;5.s.?. Le^al A'ivisers were pl?.ced in 
clmrij-e of the various of. ices as State ITRA C.-snpli i.ncs lirectors, and later 
as State HZA. Conpliance Officer'.-, ^-/ith resultant Ciisi£:es in the remainder 
of the executive staff. 

Since the replace::ient ap" ointments v.^cro nace on the recomi lendations 
of those pers.^ns in Washingt in who "believed in empiiasis m the lahor 
compliance stafis, it vas natur-'.l that tliis idea should he carried out 
in the revampinri- of the internal organization of the field offices hy 
the new Directors. 

Conversel '", added to this factor w.s t)ie decroasin,"; relative im- 
portance of the Trade Practice Co..Toliancc 0"' icers. With the origanizati in 
of code authorities ' to liar.dle trade -or.actico violo.tions, the functi~ns of 
the State Office, as ti this tv->c of case, tendeid to hecone advisory in 
nature and sujo rlementary ti the code authorities' efi'^rts. 



9861 



-42- 

While the -oositions in field offices remained virtually the same, 
Vfith increases in the number of adjusters, the scheme of organization 
during this later -aeriod ■'under the State Office system came to he differ- 
ent. 

The State Director or State Conroliance Officer carried the hulk of 
■puhlic relations and tjress relations virork, together with general adminis- 
trative responsibility, nominally, the functions of this T30sition did 
not change. 

So it v/as also with the Executive Assistant and the Trade Practice 
Compliance Officer, where there was one, except that the functions of 
the latter cai"ae to be centered chiefly in contacts with Code Authorities. 

In some offices the positio.i of Legal Adviser was for all practical 
purposes abolished by the simole exoedient of not filling vacancies. 
Legal Advisers were definitely given the task of assisting the Labor 
Compliance Officers in the exercise of their functions, in addition to 
their previous duties. 

By virtue of the enlarged staff under them and the increased empha- 
sis on this phase of the compliance organization, the Labor Compliance 
Officers became more executives, rather than adjustment officers- The 
general function, to supervise and have direct responsibility for all 
labor compliance activities, remained the same. However, the bulk of 
the Labor Compliance Officer's time was spent in supervising and planning 
the activities of the Field Adjusters. The actual handling of cases for 
adjustment necessarily was limited and restricted to "key cases" in the 
industry or state and cases involving determinations of compliance policy. 
This change infunctions, it should be borne in mind, came r^ latively late 
in the period and after the development of the idea of placing complete 
direct authority and responsibility for labor compliance on the Labor 
Compliance Officer in each particular office. In some states, there were 
created the positions of Assistait Labor Compliance Officer and Chief 
Field Adjuster, to assist in the details of supervision and direction of 
the Field Adjusters. 

The nimiber of Field Adjusters varied greatly according to the popu- 
lation and industrial importance of the state in which each office was 
located and the volume of work of the particular offices. The Adjusters, 
contrary to the earlier scheme, were under the jurisdiction and authority 
of the Labor Compliance Officers and consequently devoted the great majority 
of their time to the investigation and adjustment of labor violations. (*) 
At the discretion of the Labor Cornnliance Officer the Field Adjusters 
were sometimes used on trade practice cases. 

On June 2, 1934, authority was given to the State Offices to station 
Field Adjusters at strategic points throughout the state. These fiesident 
Field Adjusters were under the supervision and control of the Labor Com- 
pliance Officers, but of necessity were placed more on their ov/n respon- 
sibility than the Field Adjusters stationed in the State Office itself. (**) 



(*) Some Offices, however, had Trade Practice Adjusters assigned~only to 

trade practice cases. 
(**) See infra, pp. 64-65 for a further discussion. 



9861 



--13- 

Siimming up, in this period of develOTjment, the internal organization 
of a field office consisted in a State Director, who v/as nominally in 
charge of all activities, his Executive Assistant, who handled office 
management, a Trade Practice CornDliance Officer, a Legal Adviser, who was 
at least partially under the Lahor Compliance Officer, and a Lahor Compli- 
ance Officer, under whom were the Adjusters ^'nd other exclusively Labor 
Csmoliance Personnel, and v/ho was regarded as generally on a par with 
the State Director in authority over lahor compliance activities. (*) 

This scheme of organization differed from the original plan under 
Bxdletin No, 7, and Pield Letter 69 in that more emphasis was laid on the 
lahor phase of activities and hoth the authority and the responsibility 
for labor compliance were centered in the Labor Compliance Officer. Thus, 
v/hile the type of organization in effect during this period of development 
was loose and not adapted to the greatest efficiency, it was, nevertheless, 
an improvement on the original plan and a step toward the more compact 
and better-balanced administrative setup that followed. 

Section 5 - Final _d ev elo-Dinen t of organization undc^r Ahe_Reglonal .Office. 
system . The creation of the Regional Office system was announced in 
Field Letter 190, issued December 28, 1934. Among the purposes of the 
new Regional system, chief among which v;as the relief of the congestion 
of unadjusted cases before the National Compliance Council, was the decen- 
tralization of the Compliance Division organization v.'ith a consequent 
closer supervision of the field. Together with other functions and po\7ers, 
the Regional Directors vrere "to direct and be responsible for compliance 
administration" and "to direct and supervise the State. NRA Compliance 
Directors in their Regions." '(**) 

At the same time that the new Regional system began to operate, in- 
structions were -issued more definitely stating the standards of adjustment 
to be applied \iy the field offices. (***) Thus, by Pield Letter 194 
(January 18, 1935), all compromise cases were required to be submitted to 
the Regional Directors for their ap-oroval before adjustment. (****) 

The natural result of the creation of the Regional Office system 
and the issuance of instructions making the standards of adjustment more 
inflexible, was to draw the field together and to tie it more closely 
into the Conpliance Division organization. 



(*) Because of th hazy lines of authority as indicated in the text, it 
is not feasible to chart the functional organization as developed 
during this period under the State Office System. 

(**) Field Letter 190, p. 3. ... 

(***) Field Letter 193 (January 10, 1934); supra, p«.27. 

(****) Supra, p. 27.. 



9861 



The Regional Offices soon took steps to inprove the efficiency of 
their State Offices ty introducing better methods of organization and 
control. , The State Directors and Stab e Compliance Officers were in- 
structed that they v/ereths 'persons to whom the Regional Offices v/ould 
Isok fo.r the o-oeration of ' the comaliance -program in their states. In 
addition, it v/as agaii; Stated that nO' dbek'Sted labor or trade iDractice 
complaint should be closed withi^ut the approval of the Labor and Trade 
Practice Coirioliance" Of f icers , respectively. The development of the 
Labor. Gompliancfe Offic'ers' jurisdiction over the Pield Adjusters v/as 
made-,clear, since when it became necessary to refer a trade -practice 
case to a Field Adjuster,' the case had to be referred through the Labor 
Compli^ice Officer who assigned it to the individual adjuster. 

Thus, it is seen that the type of organization finally put into 
effect in t:,e field offices in the Ifst period of development v/as the 
same, v/ith one material' difference, as that evolved under' the later 
State Office Period, from June, 1934, to JaJiuary, 1935. That difference 
was, in. clearly making the head of the office the focal point for all 
relations betv/een the State Offices and their respective Regions. (*) 

The chart on the opposi'o pa£,e -ehoT's that the Executive Assistant 
v/as second in ■general author^ I'y t^. ■~:i>he State Compliance Officer in addi- 
tion to being responsible for office managem.ent . Fnile the Trade Practice 
and Labor Coinoliance Officers ■report'ed on their' respective funtions 
directly to the State Cormliance Officer, they were also subject to the 
general jurisdiction of the Executive Assistant, altho^ugh the latter 
status was ntvcr definitely determ-ined. Consequently, there existed in 
some offices a conflict betv;een the Executive Assistant and the Labor 
Compliance Officer. This manifested itself according to the personali- 
ties of the i'ndividuals holding these positions in the particular offices. 

The State Adjustment Board continued to act in an advisory capacity, 
although its' use declined after Eield Letter 194 (January 18, 1935), 
v/hich took away the Board's po'>;er to approve compromises. 

In January, 1935, the State Legal Advisers were transferred to the 
Legal DivisioTi and their titles v/e re changed to "Compliance' Attorneys. " 
(**) While continuing to advise the State Coinpliance Officers and State 
Directors on legal matters, they were subject to the supervision and 
authority of the Regional Attorneys of the Legal Division. At the time 
of this transfer, however, some of the legal personnel were retained on 
the Compliance Division ^jayroll in different capacities. 

• The fu.actional organization of the field, of co-arse, differed v/ith 
various offices. This v/as natural, because the personnel problem had 
not -been solved. Hov/ever, for purposes of illustration, it is deemed 
appropriate here to describe the internal struct-ore of several of the 
field offices, which,' it will be seen, differed only in minor details, 
due chiefly to variations in size and in volume of v/ork. 



(*) A chart shriwih^ 't his form 6f ort^anization is reproduced on the 

opposite page, ^ffith minor variations, as described in the body of 
the text that follows, it is representative of the -field offices. 

(**) Field Letter 194. 

9861 



-45- 



State CoIl^>liance 
Officer 



State Adjxistment 
Board 



Executive Secretary 



T 



Compliance 
Attorney 



Ssecuti've 
Assistant 



T 



Labor Con^liance 
Officer 



Trade Practice 
Officer 



Chief 
Clerk 



Assistant Labor 
Compliance Officer 



Clerical and 
Stenographic 
Staff 



Chief Field 
Adjuster 



Field Adjusters 
(and Investigators) 



9861 



-46- 

The Boston, Massachusetts State Office had an executive staff con- 
sisting of the State Compliance Officer, and Executive Assistant, a 
Lator Compliance Officer, and a Trade Practice Compliance Officer. 

The Executive Assistant v/as in full charge of the office force and 
acted as Executive Secretary of the State Adjustment Board, in addition 
to assisting the State ComiDliance Officer in his general administrative 
duties. Under the Executive Assistant v/as a stenographer-clerk who was 
in charge of the hulk of the stenographic and clerical staff, the re- 
mainder reporting directly to the E::ecutive Assistant. A discussion of 
the mechanical details of the general staff's functions is not deemed 
material. 

The Trade Practice Compliance Officer was in charge of all trade 
practice complaints and other matters closely allied v.dth this phase of 
compliance. He did most of his own investigational and adjustment work 
and reported to the State Compliance Officer, 

The Labor Compliance Officer, directly under the supervision of the 
State Compliance Officer, was resTDonsiTale for obtaining compliance with 
the labor provisions of the codes. Under him was an Assistant Labor Cora- 
pliajice Officer who assigned corrrplaints to the various adjusters for 
handling. There was also a Chief Field Adjuster, who in reality acted 
only as a Senior Adjuster. There were fourteen other Field Adjusters and 
two Investigators, who did not make final adjustments. Some Field Adjus- 
ters were assigned to particular codes, while others vv'orked on complaints 
arising in my industry. 

There was also a sup-plementary investigational staff supplied by the 
State Department of Labor, in coo-peration with the State Office. 

The Connecticut State Office executive staff consisted only of the 
State Compliance Officer and the Labor Compliance Officer. The functions 
of Executive Assistant, Trade Practice Compliance Officer, and Executive 
Secretary to the State Adjustment Board were all exercised by the State 
Compliance Officer together vdth his OA-m duties. 

Under the Labor Compliance Officer, who had the usual functions, v/ere 
an Office Adjuster and eight Field Adjusters, one of whom was supplied by 
the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. There was also another Office 
Adjuster who handled both labor and trade practice cases. These Office 
Adjusters had the function of handling complaint adjustments by conferences 
in the State Office, as distinguished from Field Adjusters who also made 
investigations. 

The Rhode Island State Office organization is interesting because of 
its uniqueness, the jJlan vfhich was to have gone officially into effect on 
June 1, 1935, not providing for either a Labor or Trade Practice Compliance 
Officer. 

The State Com-pliance Officer and the Executive Assistant supervised 
the general activities of the office as well as the compliance v/ork, the 
Ejscutive Assistant also acting as Executive Secretary to the State Ad- 
justment Board. 



9861 



-47- 

The general office staff consisted in a Chief Clerk and an Assist- 
ant Clerk ("both of whom h-jndled details on -oersonnel) , two file clerks, 
two docketing clerks, .two receptionists (one of whom was also a file 
clerk), and five stenographers (two of whom have been previously men- 
tioned in other caoacities). 

Labor and trade practice complaints v/ere adjusted "by a staff of 
three Senior Compliance Adjusters, one of whom also acted as Field In- 
vestigator, with seven other such investigators under him, Houtine 
correspondence on complaints v/as handled "by two mem"bers of the clerical 
staff. 

The internal structure of the Missouri State Office followed the 
same general lines as those descri"bed a"bove, although it had a slightly 
fuller organization more tyoical of the larger offices. 

The State Compliance Officer exercised general supervision over the 
entire staff of the office, directing and controlling all activities 
through a numbered series of memoranda, setting forth general office 
routine, office policies, assignment of duties, and general instructions. 
These memoranda usually resulted from v/eekly conferences vdth mem'bers of 
the executive staff and weekly meetings with the Field Adjusters. In 
addition, the hulk of the work connected with relations with other Federal 
and State agencies. Code Authorities, la'bor unions, and trade groups, as 
well as all contact with the Hegional and Washington offices, fell on the 
State Comnliance Officer. He also handled all matters of personnel, ex- 
cept routine, on the advice of a Personnel Committee comoosed of the Execu- 
tive Assistant, the La'bor Compliance Officer, the special Adjuster, the 
Comijliance Attorney, and sometimes the Chief Field Adjuster. The actual 
work connected with the issuance of homeworkers' and handicapped workers' 
permits, \7ith v;hich he was charged, was delegated to the Special Adjuster. 
Because he had formerly served as La"bor Compliance Officer and had handled 
the Apprentice Training program in the state, the State Compliance Officer 
continued to carry this function, assisted "by the Special Adjuster. 

The Executive Assistant y/as responsi'ble for the management of the 
office and all matters of office routine, and supervised the general 
clerical and stenographic staff. He also assisted the State Compliance 
Officer in public relations work and acted as Trade Practice Compliance 
Officer. 

In direct charge of the office staff was the Chief Clerk, who also 
handled personnel details ^d sorted all incoming complaints for accept- 
ance, rejection, or transfer to another agency. Where the proper primary 
action T;as in doubt, the Chief Clerk referred the question either to the 
Compliance Attorney or to the Labor Compliance Officer, who had formerly 
served as Legal Adviser. 

A member of the clerical staff, so classified because of budget 
restrictions, acted as Trade Practice Adjuster, reporting to the Execu- 
tive Assistant. 

The Labor Compliance Officer directed all labor compliance activities, 
including the planning of mass compliance surveys and the training, in- 
struction and supervision of the Field Adjusters. Acting on suggestions 
from members of his staff, he prescribed standards and policies of inspec- 
tion and adjustment to supplement the general instructions from Washington. 

9861 



-4-3- 

He supervised the work oi the Pisld Adjusters by reviewing case files 
and daily reTiorts. 

The reviev/ing of case files and reports was also done by Special 
Adjuster, v/ho acted as aa Assistant Labor CoEpliance Officer and also 
as a sneoial assistant to the State Coraoliance Officer, in addition to 
her rei-.ulf.'"" fimctions in connection with the issuance of permits for 
handicmoped and home workers. 

The assignment of cases to and direct supervision of the Field Ad- 
justers Vi'ere deleg-ited to the Chief Field Adjuster. ITewer men were also 
assigned to the Two Senior Field Adjusters for suoervision and training. 

The twelve Field Adjusters were charged with both the investigation 
and adjustmciit of coinpla"".nts, "'jnlike the PJiode Island system, which split 
up the:'.e twc functio'ns. More important cases were assigned to the Chief 
Field Adjuster and the t-./o Senior Field Adjusters, but there -was no 
specialization of codes. 

Cases involving adjustments which were important because of size or 
other factors, or containing questions of policy or difficult interpreta- 
tion were referred to the La^bor Coiiipliance Officer for his personal at- 
tention. 

The Coiiipliance Attorney acted as legal adviser to the State Compli- 
ance Director, but reported to the Regional Attorney of the Legal Divi- 
sion. Legal matters, questions of interi^retation, and the preparation 
of unadj-g.sted cases for removal of the Blue Eagle end for litigation com- 
prised his official functions. He also assisted the Labor Compliance 
Officer in handling cases Y/hich'.ere likely to reach the District Attorney. 

The last description of field office organization has been given in 
considerable detail to more cleraly bring out the machinery established 
in State -Offices to carry out their functions. It is not to be supposed 
that the offices specially mentioned were other than convenient illustra- 
tions for a proper concept of the field organization. 

The structures described represent those finally developed by May, 
1935, By that time the field force had been improved from, in most offices, 
the original top-heavy organization to a fairly well-balanced, smoothly 
operating staff. Daily experience in handling cases, and the better or- 
ganization methods v/hich were evolved had begun to combine and solve many 
of the problems of inadequate personnel and of coi-Tpliance procedure. 
Counterbalanced against this v'as the evcr-increasingly apparent weak legal 
basis for th ; IIRA program, which also served as a potent influence on 
efforts to increase the efficiency of the compliance organization. 



9861 



Chq,pter V - Compliance Procedure in Field Offices 

Section I - Com]3laan_tSj_th^_l)agi3 of procedure . The original "Regulations 
for the Adjustment by District Compliance Directors of Complaints of Code 
Violations" established the procedure to be followed by the field in 
carrying out its functions. Under this procedure, and that promulgated 
for the Local Compliance Boards in handling the President' s Reemployment 
Agreement, (*) the sole basis for activity in obtaining compliance was 
the filing of complaints by employees, competitors or other interested 
parties charging the particular respondent with committing a violation 
of a code or the PRA. 

(*) Bulletin No. 5, "Regulations on Procelure for Local NHA Compliance 
Boards" (September 12, 1933), pp. 2-6, inclusive. The procedure 
provided briefly was as follows: .Vaen a complaint of violation was 
received, it was examined for legal sufficiency by the legal number 
of the Board. In tne event the complaint stated a prima facie viola- 
tion, notice that it had been filed was given the employer. The 
notice might be either written, telephonic or personal, and was 
supposed to assume compliance and that the complaint was due to a 
misunderstanding. Together with tae notice, tiie respondent was 
furnished with copies of the PRA and official ex]3lanatory releases. 
The provisions of the PRA were then explained to the employer by a 
member or a representative of the Board in an informal personal 
interview, and tne respondent was allowed to explain the facts 
alleged in the complaint and to make any necessary adjustments 
in working conditions. 

In the event the complaint was not adjusted by the foregoing pro- 
cedure, the respondent was given an opportunity to appear before the 
Board and state his case. Notice of opportunity to be heard before 
the Board was not in a prescribed form but aad to *e sent on of^ 
ficial NRA stationery in a franked envelope, and was to include 
copies of the PRA and official explanatory releases, unless pre- 
viously furnisiied. 

Hearings were to be conducted by the Board on an informal tone, 
for the purpose of educating the employer and influencing him to 
comply voluntarily. The Boards were instructed that they had no 
power to compel the attendance of the employer and witnesses, the 
production of books and papers, or the giving of testimony. Ques- 
tions were to be confined to tiie single purpose of determining the 
validity of the complaint, and were to be used chiefly to aid the 
respondent in making his voluntary statement. If the respondent 
refused to answer a material question it was explained to him that 
such was contrary to the spirit of tne Agreement, and such refusals 
were noted by the Board in matcing its report to NRA. 

The .Board then decided by majority vote whether or not the complaint 
was T"alied. '.Taere no violation was found t.ie case was dropped. 
Where a violation,;was foand, tue eni[Dloyer was t,iven an opportunity 
to rectify conditions. In eituer event, w.ietaer t:ie complaint was 
adjusted or rejected, tie respondent was given a Letter of Compliance 

(Footnote (*) continued on next pa.ie) 



-50- 

(Footnote (*) continued) 

which iie iniglit display near his insignia. " " ■ 

."ifliere tiie respondent refused to adjust, tue Board forwarded^a 
report to 1T3A throut^i the Secretary of the District Recovery 
Board, signed by all members, with their votes indicated, which 
included: the original complaint; a signed certificate by the 
legal rnember or otner representative ti^at the procedure outlined 
iiad been followed; a summary of the employer's statement; any 
additional pertinent facts; a, recormnenaation for furt-ier action. 

Progress reports were made from time to time to tne Secretary 
of the District Recovery Beard. 

All comTilaints uad to be in writing end signed by the complaining 
party. The Boards' jurisdiction extended to all PRA complaints 
against employers in tlieir oarticular comiTiunities. 

Two cardinal rules of procedure were laid dorm: (l) both the 
fact that a com^plaint had been filed against an employer and 
the complainant's identity were to be- kept confidential; (2) 
the Board was not an enforcement agency m any sense of txie word, 
but was to gain compliance t.irough educa,tion, explanation, and 
conciliation. 

The Board had no general investigational or inquisitorial f-onc- 
tions, but to tne contrary, was instructed not to use its re- 
presentatives as investigation agents (p.. 10). 

Second offenders, wnere the action appeared to be wilful, were 
to be given no opportunity to adjust complaints. 

(Note the similarity between tne above described procedure and 
that employed by District Compliance Offices under t.ie October 
19 Regulations and by the State Offices under Bulletin. No. 7, 
which is discussed in the body of the text tliat follows. Tliis 
is made especially interesting by the following quotation from 
Bulletin No 5, p. 4, which brings out the differing bases of 
the PRA. and the codes," - - - - tiie President's Reemployment 
Agreement is not a statute to be enforced by .lay but a voluntary 
individual covenant.") 



9861 



-51- 

Under txie procedure created, complaints cf code violations had to 
■fae in writing, preferably on the oxficially prescribed form. (*) Tne 
instructions also stated t^iat w^iere possible, co.nplaints sxiould be sv/orn 
to before a notary or v;itnesse.d by at lea'jt cne person familiar witii the 
facts. However, this last was never followed extensively by the field 
offices because, for the most part, complaining e.nployees were financially 
unable to pay notaries' fees and fear of tiisir identities as complainants 
becoming kncv/n precluded the practicability of requiring witnesses. Like- 
wise, many complainants were relativexy uneducated and unable to cope 
with any tecnnical requirements attac.ied to the filing of complaints. 

The District Offices were, given jurisdiction over all complaints 
charging violations of ap.'-roved codes by employers situated within their 
respective districts, , (*'-) except Wiiere a code authority for the part- 
icular industry had been organized and authorized to handle tiie type of 
complaint filed. 

'ilQien a complaint was received, it was docketed and examined by the 
Legal Adviser to determine wheL.er or nottne facts alleged tiierein, if 
true, were sufficient to state a violation. If t^e finding was in the 
negative the complaint was rejected and closed and the complainant so 
notified, together with the reasons for holding it invalid. (***) ^low- 
ever, if the complaint was determined to state a prima facie case of 
vioXation, it was accepted and put tnrough a regular procedure, described 
below. (****) 

It is important to note ncre tne emphasis wliicn was placed on legal 
sufficiency, form, and a set procedure, since the tendency of the fi&L-d 
was to interpret tiiese instructions literally. This emphasis on form 
Was not wit.iout its purpose. The field offices were very much understaf- 
fed, and even the limited personnel was largely untrained for tiie work, 
so that seme device was necessary to conserve compliance facilities by 
eliminating groundless and crank complaints. lowever, the placing of 
formal requirements proved to be a two-edged sword, for many really had 
cases of non-corapliance went untouc.ied, only to arise and plague the 
field offices at a later date. 

In illustration of this was the manner of treatment of anonymous 
complaints. As pointed out in the footnote beginning on the first page 
of this chapter, tue instructions to Local Compliance Boards handling 
tae PRA required all complaints to be in writing and singed by the com- 
plainant. (*****) T-iis.was c-.ianged in tne instiructions to District 
Compliance Directors to the rule that anonyraous coiaplaints miglit be act- 
ed on at the discretion of the Directors. (***>;=**) in practice this re- 
sulted in the majority of such complaints being rejected, since the 
District Offices were looking for every pos=^ible way to ligiiten their 

J*) ":ie,iulations for tue Adjustment" etc. (October 19, 1935), p. 1 

(**) "Regulations for the Adjust.nent, " etc., p. 1, 

(***) Ibid, p. 1 

(****) Infra, pp. 52-53. 

(*****) Office Manual, V-3-22, section 1, paragraph 2. 
(******) "Regulations for tne Adjustment" etc., p. 1. 
9861 



own loads so that they co-aid operate with some decree of efficiency. 
Although this treatment of anonymotis complaints was ifictated hy immediate 
necesGity, it later was proved to have heen an imdesirahle method of 
approach, while lo^ic concluded that if a complaint were well-grounded 
ajid m?.de i"! ^rood faith the comi'dainant would sign his name, ey^perience 
shoTvfed that msaiy complaints were filed anonymously and many violations 
went unreported because the employees were afraid that the signing of 
their names on a complaint form meant prohahle discharge, or at least 
discrimination on the part of the employer. (*) 

However, "before going further into the gradual modification of the 
complaints basis of compliance activities, it is well to exc?.mine into 
the procedure created for the handling of code coraplrints once they had 
been accepted by the Legal Advisers. 

It was originally provided that a complaint valid on its face should 
take one of two coiirses of action. If the Code Authority had been author- 
ized to handle the particular tjrpc of complaint, a copy was referred to 
the authorir;ed agency for adjustment vdthin a specified time and the 
parties were so notified. (**) If within the time specified the case 
was not reported back as adjusted, the District Compliance Director 
proceeded to treat it according to the second cotu-se of action. Where 
the Code Authority made a report to the District Compliance Director 
within the time limit, from which it appeared a satisfactory adjustment 
of the complaint had been made, the case was filed as adjusted. (***) 



(*) [This fact was recogniz.ed, at least in part, at an early date. 
Liaison Circular 64 (October 6, 1933), paragraph 3, quoted a 
memorandum purportedly from the Compliance Division relative to 
instructions to Local Compliance I'joards, which read as follows: "The 
instructions in Bulletin No. 5 state that 'all complaints should be 
in writing ■ind signed hy the person m.aking the complaint.' This is 
intended to protect the Compliance Board from following up malicious 
and anonymcus complaints. 

"If a Board wishes to receive anonymous complaints, it may do 
so ." 

Note that this m^emoranduin was written some three y/eeks before the 
Compliaiice Division was officially created by Office Order No. 40. 

(**) "Regulations for the Adjustment" etc., p. 1 

(***) "Regulations for the adjustment" etc., p. 1 



9861 



-53-. 

■ If tie District Coinpliance Directjr had not been specifically in- 
structed to refer tie particular type of complaint to a Code Authority, 
it was handled in the following; nianner. (*) A letter of acknowledgment 
was sent tie complainant, and tie respondent was informed of the nature 
of tlie complaint, was fumisned a copy of t-.e code and an explanation 
of pertinent provisions, and was invited to state his side of the case. 
(**) 

In the event the first letter to. the respondent failed to evol:e a 
response, or the reply was unsatisfactory, a second letter was sent (***) 
inviting the employer to the office for a personal interview. If this 
method proved fruitless of adjustment, a form letter was sent informing 
the respondent that the case would te sent to the National Compliance 
Director if satisfactory evidence of compliance were not furnished in 
a stated number of days. Another letter was then sent notifying the 
respondent the case was being forwarded to lashington. After allowing 
sufficient time for a reply, the file was forwarded to the National 
Compliance Director for furt:ier action. (****) 

District Compliance Directors wer^ instructed to treat all com- 
plaints confidentially, because of the danger of the complainant's dis- 
charge on one haad, and tue disastrous effect of adverse public opinion 
on a respondent's business on tie otlier hand. (*****) 

Likewise, it was emphasized tJiat t.ie field officers were not en- 
forcement agents but were to attain compliance througli education, ex- 
planation and adjustment. ( *--i<>i=***) The enforcement arms of tne Govern- 
ment were specified in tie Act as being the Department of Justice and 
the. Federal Trade Commission, (***--k***) ^^^ cases v/ent to tl.iese two 
agencies tlirough tie National Compliance Director and the National Com- 
pliance Board. (********) 

The treatment of second offenders, was not mentioned in the "Re- 
gulations," but m Liaison Circular 73 t.ie District Compliance Directors 
were told onl.v to substantiate the facts in t.iese cases, where they 



(*) In IJRA Studies Special Ex..ibits '.York ilaterial #77. 

(**) "Regulations for tie Adjustment" etc,, pp. 2, 3. 

(***) See note (*) £ "bove . 

(****) "Regulations for tlie Adjustment" etc., p^. 2 and 3. 

(*****) "Re_,ulations for tie Adjustment" etc., p. 3. 

^*****H=) Ibid, p. 3; Liaison Circular 75, p. 2. 

(*******) NIRA, Title I, Section 3, paragraphs (b) , (c) , and (f); 
see also Chapter III, note (3), p. 16. 

(********) Office Order 40. 



9861 



-54- 

felt t..ie violations were wilful, and to give no opportunity to the re- 
spondent to adjust. (*) 

This procedure contained no pla.cs for field interviews or real 
investig-ation. ITor were tne field ofi?.cep equipped to experiment in 
this direction. (**) It is little wonder, t/ierefore, that small im- 
provement, except in isolated of i ices, was made in compliance pro- 
cedure during tne earl/ days. The prDcelure wuich was created was 
so ill-adapted to practical use, the facilities provided for tne field 
so inadequate, that tJie immediate valae of the field offices as real 
compliance agencies was .almost nil during tiie earliest stage. Their 
use ca.ue more as exoerimental stations for Lie improvement of procedure 
and organization' and tlie development of policies, and as agencies for 
educating industry to the values and henefits of NRA, which did not make 
itself felt urxtil a later date. l\[or is this a criticism of the method 
of approach to the gigantic orgajiizn.ti'-.n problem or of field offices 
as a class. As has been pointed out in connection with the evolution 
of an adjustment policy, (***) a v/orkable compliance system can only 
be developed successfully after actual experience in code Administration, 
It was unfortunate that much time was lost in the emergency job of ob- 
taining compliance because such experience was lacking, or if it were 
available from other similar systems of industrial regulation, because 
its lessons were not utilized. 

On January 22, 1934, tjiere was issued IfitA Bulletin IJo. 7, "Manual 
for the Adjustment of Complaints by State Directors and Code Authorities," 
which modified and expanded on the previous procedure. Just about a 
week prior to the issuance of this "Manual" the State Directors were 
appointed and tne Compliance Division's field organizati^jn v;as changed 
from a system of twenty-six District Offices, leaded by the former 
District Managers of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, to 
one of forty-eight, and later fifty-four. State Offices headed by the 
new State MA Compliance Directors. (****) 

Tais transformation in organization and procedure reflected to 
some iegree the sad experiences of tiie District Offices resulting from 
inadequate, untrained staffs and an inflexible, too limited procedure. 

The new procedure was broader, .--aid contemplated some use of Field 
Adjusters, but still remained more or less inflexible and contained 
several objectionable features from tie standpoint of practical applica- 
tion. 

(*) Liaison Circular 75, p. 2. 

(**) Supra, Chapter IV, section 2, "Internal organization - early 
development" (of field offices). 

(***) Cnapter III, "Tl.e Administrative Settlement cf Code Violations," 
p. 24. 

(****) Cliapter IV, "T.ie Origin and Development of Zield Offices," 
supra. 



9861 



-55- 



T'le underly.ng theory of all compliance I'rocedure was the speedy 
elimination, oy adjustment, of such noncompliance as was due to mis- 
understanding, ajid the prompt prosecution of all cases of wilful non- 
compliance. (*) Bearing this in mind it is interesting to note the 
changes broug;:t ahout in Bulletin No. 7. 

At this point there should "be recalled the history of the de- 
velopment of the definition and policy of adjustment and the internal 
organization of t-is field offices, "both of which nave been discussed 
in previous chapters. 

A single procedure was established ostensibly for all types of 
cases. However, t'le organization of tiie offices with separate Com- 
pliance Officers for labor and trade practice, and the application of 
t-ie idea of industria.1 self-government (**) chiefly to trade practice 
cases, may be said to have split up this single system, in reality, 
into two c/parate procediores waich overlapped to a certain degree in 
complaints arising under individual codes. 

Tliis brings us to a consideration of tiie definition of the terms 
employed to prescribe the limits of each division of procedure. Comr- 
plaints w xch dealt with violations of the labor provisiL-ns of the codes, 
i.e., the regulations concBrnin_, minimum wages, maxirmim aours, homework, 
and other terms and conditions of employment, including the prohibition 
of child labor, were designated as "labor complaints." Conversely, 
"trade practice complaints" were defined to include those cases involv- 
ing violations of all other provisi^^ns, such as, production control, 
cost determination, regulation of trade tenns, and otaer prescribed rules 
of conduct of members of industry among themselves. This last class 
also included jorovisions for t.;e administra,tion of the codes by the 

particular industries. (***) 

.(*1_ Bulletin I'o. 7, p. 7. 

i*f) Bulletin Y.o. 7, p. 3 stated t.i<:- pur;>ose of the Compliance Div- 

ision to be to fill in the gaps of industrial self-government, 
which was tae ultimate aim to be accompli s.ied. Thus (continuing 
on pp. 5 and 6) NIIA would "act for an Industry while the In- 
dustry is ;rganizing to handle compl ' ance problems for itself; 
or w.iere an Industry m a certain territory has no Industrial 
Adjustment Agencies; or v/here an Industry'', thougii organized 
to ..landle trade practice complaint';, aas no machinery to handle 
labor complaints; or w.iere the Industry fails to carry through 
in its efforts to adjust a complaint; or w.iere for any ctner 
reason it is necessary for t.--.e governmental rither than the 
industrial system to act." 
(***) Bulletin No. 7 p. 5. 



9861 



-5P- 



Tl'.e definition cf a tuird class of complaints, "Ip.bor disputer^," 
is not t^ernane to t'lis discussion because they were early removed from 
the jurisdiction of NRA and placed under. the national Labor Board or 
ctlier s:ecial agencies, (*) 

Under Bulletin llo. 7, complaints had to be m writing;, piefeT^My 
on t"-.e i^RA complaint form, but were not required to be notarized or 
witnessed. Anonymous complaints miL^-it be acted upon at the discretion 
of the State Director. (*'') 

Complaints were ri^uted, accordin,^ to their nature, to the Labor 
Compliance and Trade Practice Compliance Officers, respectively. At 
this point comes a.n essential departure from the original procedure. 
A competitor making a labor complaint against another employer might 
elect to have it treated as a trade prd.ctice complaint, and it was 
thereafter to go t'.irougli the procedure for t.^e latter ty;pe of case. 
It would thiis be referred to a Code Authority authorized to handle 
trade pract. ::;e, althoUt^i not autliori'Zjd to .landle labor viola.ti-ns. 

If a Code Authority (****) existed in the Industry and was auth- 
orized to handle the particul.ar tyie of complaint in the first instance, 
the briginal complaint was referred to it v/itjiout further a.ction by the 
State Office, unles'^'- it appeared from tlie face or substance of the com- 
plaint tiiat it T/as iJurposely filed with th.e State Director. (*****) 
A complaineoit always Jj.ad the righ.t to file a complaint with the NHA, 
rather t.ian with, an authorized Code Authority, in order to protect his 
or tlie public interest. (******) 

T*) Ibid, p. 12. 

(**) Bulletin !Io. 7, p. 11. . v 

(***) Ibid, p. 12. . ■ ' 

(****) The term "Code Authority" is used '. ersin in order not to confuse 
the reader, althou^^i tue correct title perhaps shoald be, "In- 
dustrial Adjusti.ient Agency," v/hicu is thie nai.ie given by Bul- 
letin ITo. 7, p. 4 to an agency of an industry for obtaining 
compliajice. 

(*****) Bulletin IJo. 7, p. 12. 

(******) Bulletin ITo. 7. This right, however, meant little because 
jurisdiction over t-ie approval and appointment, as well as 
the removal, of Code Authority membors and agents, together 
wit-: their aut'iorizaticn to handle complaints, was vested in 
the Division end Deputy Adiiiinistrators, rafcier taan in the 
Coiroliance Division. 



9861 



-5V- 

This procedure was much more characteristic of trade practice cases 
than of labor complaints. TiTaile after June, 1934 complaints referred to 
Code Authorities in the first instance v/ere not docketed by the State 
Offices and hence no complete, figures on the nuaber of cases so referred 
are available, general experience saowed tuat tae preponderant majority 
of sucn complaints dealt with trade practice violations. In fact ■''.69 
Code Authorities were authorized to i.andle trade practice complaints 
as of March 25, 1935, while but 31 were given jurisdiction over labor 
complaints. 

Complaints which came under the initial jurisdiction of tne State 
Directors were then exan:ined for legal sufficiency, all douotful ques- 
tions being referred to the Legal Advisers. This examination did not 
differ from that provided in the original procedure, except that where 
a complaint indicated a code provision might have been violated, but 
failed to state sufficient facts, instead of being rejected the com- 
plainant wa,s requested to furnisa the necessary additional informa- 
tion. (*) 

iTliere a Code Authority had been authorized to handle complaints 
on reference (usually labor), a digest of tae allegations was referred 
to that body for adjustment within a stipulated period not to exceed 
tv/o weeks, and the parties were so notified. If no report was made 
within the time specified a Progress Report was requested by return 
mail. If no satisfactory reply was tnen received the State Director 
advised the Code Authority he would proceed to adjust the case on 
the assumption it had been unable to do so, unless immediate word 
was received to the contrary. Sufficient time for a reply was then, 
allowed to elapse before action was actually started. If tlie com- 
plaint was reported back, to the State Director as unadjusted, it was 
tnen put through a second course of procedure described below. On 
the other hand, if the Code Authority reported tjie case as adjusted, 
the State Office closed the -Ca5e and so notified the complainant. (**) 

The difficulty with tais arrangement was tiat, since the Code 
Authorities were not under the full supervision and control of the 
field offices or even the Compliance Division in Washington, their poli- 
cies of adjustment and procedure natrually were different. An alarm- 
ing number of cases had to be re-handled after Jieinr, reported back to 
the State Offices as adjusted. The purpose of the plan was probably to 
train the Code Authorities to be in a position to handle labor coin- 
plaints in tie first instance. (***) 



(*) Bulletin Wo. 7, p. 13. 

(**) Bulletin ilo. 7, pp. 13 - 14. 

(***) Ibid., p. 14, "The State Director will keep a record of all com- 
plaints sent to Industrial Adjustment Agencies on reference and 
when he believes that any such Agency is qualified to handle a 
particular type of complaint in the first instance he will make 
such a recommendation to the National Compliance Director." 



9861 



-58- 

Tlie iDulk of complaints filed in State Offices, and not immediately 
transmitted in toto to anotier agency, were handled "0/ tiiem witliout re- 
ference to Code Autliorities. T.ie following procediire relating to cases 
handled directly by State Offices, (*) tuersfore, will f jrm the center 
of the remainder of t.iis 'liscuspdon on compliance procedure in the field. 

The initial steps were virtually tne s,ame as prov-ided in the original 
"Regulations" issued to District Compliance Directors on October 19, 1933. 
The respondent was informed of the nature of t.ie complaint; trie applicable 
part of the code was explained to him; he was asked for a sta.tement of Liis 
position; and he was furnished with copies of tne cede and a; printed 
statement entitled, "Information for Persons Charged with Violation of an 
NRA Code," which, set forth in simple language a brief outline of the pro- 
cedure and the respondent's rights. If no reply was received in a reason- 
able time, a duplicate letter with enclosures was sent to the respondent 
by registered mail. 

If. the respondent admitted the violation but furnished satisfactory 
evidence of present compliance, willingnsss to comply in the future, and 
equitable restitution (**) for past violations,, tie case was considered 
as adjusted and the parties so notified. 

In case the respondent denied tne facts, or a.firaitted the facts and 
denied tiiey constituted a violation, or failed to satisfy tJie Compliance 
Officer that an adjustment had been made, he was invited to be present 
at an office interview. If this method were not feasible, or if it 
failed to produce an adjustment, a Field Adjuster was somietiraes sent to 
visit tiie respondent. This tardy use of the Field Adjuster indicates 
that investigations in the field were of seconda.ry importance in develop- 
ing cases, an unsatisfactory a.pproach dictated largel.y by budgetary con- 
siderations which in turn was due to t]ie philosophy which prevailed at 
the time (early 1934) that most Code Authorities would in due course 
take over the handling of compliance in their respective trades and 
industries. 

-.If the Field Adjuster's report showed no violation, the complain- 
ant was so notified. If no further word v/as received from tae complain- 
ant within a reasonable time (asually ten days to two weeks) the case 
was filed as adjusted. ilTiere th.e Field Adjuster's report showed a will- 
ingness on tie ;^art of the respondent to comoly and to malve equitable 
restitution, the case was closed on receipt of evidence that that ha.d 
been done. 

Unadjusted cases of violations were forv7arded to the National Comr- 
pliance Director in tiie same manner, and after the three warning letters 
to the respondent, as specified in the original procedure under the 
"Regulations for t^ie Adjustment by District Compliance Directors," etc, 

(*) Tlie procedure described in the text was contained in Bulletin 
No. 7, pp. 14 - 18, inclusive. 

(**) See Chapter III, section 6, "Evolution of an adjustment policy," 
supra. 



9861 



-59- 

Bulletin No. 7 further provided tliat in case either the complainant 
or respondent were dissatisfied with the decision of the Compliance 
Officer, he should be afforded an interview witn the State Director. If 
he were still dissatisfied, he had the right to appeal the case to the 
State Adjustment Board, which made its findings in the form of a recom- 
mendation to the State Director. 

All complaints had to he treated confidentially as to hoth parties. 
(*) In the event an interpretation of the code were needed to proceed 
with a case, a request for a ruling had to he made through the Washington 
office to the proper Industry Division. (**) There was no power to con- 
tinue action on the complaint until such interpretation were issued, 
sometimes months later. 

It is apparent to even the casual observer tliat this system of 

procedure was much too cumbersome to allow efficient operation of the 

field. 'Bulletin No. 7 was so phrased as practically to preclude any 
departures from it. 

Til e whole system was frauglit with delays and opportunities to 
t:ie respondents to frustrate the compliance program. Cases usually 
developed into correspondence battles, while the compliance situation 
in the industry raiglit be rapidly deteriorating without any real efforts 
to check it. T^ie provision for the use of Field Adjusters was a step 
in the right direction, but by tae time the case had reached that stage 
much nf the dama,j,e caused by the barrage of letters had been done. 
This all resulted in a great deal of v/asted effort and time, when by 
the emergency nature of the job and tiie inadequacy of facilities to do 
the work, every ounce of .energy and evory minute was precious. 

The formality and inflexibility of tiie procedure, raalcing the 
filing of a complaint the sole basis for compliance activities, combined 
with the liiirlted facilities of the field to cause a tendency to restrict 
adjustments to the individual complainant and to accept in lieu of an 
investigation a statement or affidavit from the respondent denying the 
facts cr claiming the required adjustment aad been made. Tliis last was 
the product of necessity, since any desires to investigate a complaint 
properly were successiully stalemated '.by the absence of a sufficient 
staff for this purpose and the set procedure provided, which did not 
allow for a free use of investigators. Consequently, v/ithcut varying 
from the prescribed line of action it was virtually impossible to educate 
employers sufficiently to lay a firm foundation for healthy conditions 
of compliance, or e'^sn to bring about momentary present conformity and 
to obtain restitution for past violations. 

Bear in mind that the field offices were upder constant, terrific 
pressure from complainants. Code Authorities, business men, labor and 
trade groups, ond Washington to haadle complaints and get them off th.e 
books. In some of tlie weaker offices this combination of circumstances 
served to bastardize their efforts to such an extent that they souglit 

T*) Bulletin No. 7, p. 7. 

(**) Ibid, p. 3. 

9861 



to close cases 'o:/ all sorts of devious reasonings and tae invocation of 
tec'jiicalities. At t.is tirns tiere was little or no stress laid on wp,ge 
restitutions. Consequently, the. -complaining employee was sometimes re- 
garded as a disloyal "informer" and was required to fully substantiate 
Ills charges 'before tiiey would "be recognized. 

Fortunately, however, this intolerable situation so revolted the 
lar.-;er nunber of field offices that t-iey t. rew off, bit by bit, the 
hampering restrictions of the complaints plan of procedure. Consequently, 
during the late spring of 19M, coincidentally with the development of 
adjustment policies and staff organization, these field offices began 
to cast about for and to find improvements ii: procedure, wiich finally 
came to be passed on to the remainder of the field thrcugli tlic mediura 
of Field Letter 125 and the travelling Field Representatives. 

Before passing on to a discussion of these departures from the pro- 
cedure, there should be noted two shortcuts v/hich were provided, in 
order to trl'ie care of unusual cases requiring speedy action. 

Bulletin No. 7 provided that whenever t!ie State Director was con- 
vinced that a complaint conclusively set forth a violatirn, which the 
respondent showed no disposition to correct cr adjust, then the State 
Director mig.at immediately refer the entire record to the National Com- 
pliance Director without fol"!- owing t:ie regula,r procedure. (*) 'iVliile 
this looked very good on paper, it had little effect in alleviating the 
situation. In the first place, it applied only to unusual cases and 
did not vary the regular procedure as to the great bulk of the complaints 
recoived. Moreover, this provision for a shortcut erroneously presup- 
posed an adequate investigating sta,ff to immediately prepare the evidence 
for the file, since obviouslj;" Bulletin No. 7 could not mean the complaint 
was to be referred to the National Corapli.ance Director v/ithout any in- 
vestigation. Aside from taese two difficulties, even thougji a case were 
properly prepared and transmitted, it bore a likely cliance of not being 
acted on without delay and possibly of being later returned to the State 
Office for furtaer investigation or attempts at adjustment, Tiie lack of 
a clear policy of action in Wasliington , the mechanical difficulties of 
advancing a complaint to the stage of Blue Eagle removal and reference 
to the enforcement agencies, and the even greater improbability of the 
case being promptly and effectively litigated, all combined to complete 
the task of turning this well-meant short-cut of procedure into a mere 
paper plan. 



(*) Bulletin No. 7, p. 17. 



9861 



-61- 



Of more value was Administrative Order X-14, issued April 6, 1934, 
which amended the provision in Bulletin ITo. 7 Just mentioned, by allowing 
the State Directors to refer case§ direct to U. W. Attorneys, rather than 
to the National Compliance Director. (*) At the time of the reference, 
the respondent was notified and a transcript in triplicate was sent to 
the Control Section of tlie Compliance Division in 'iTashington. 

This new power was exercised in varying degrees by different offices, 
but was generally found to be of practical use. It eliminated to some 
extent the difficulties of mechanical delay in Washington and the absence 
of a definite plan of action. It was the first major step in the de- 
centralization of the Compliance Division, and therefore of prime importance. 



(*) This constituted Amendment 1 to Bulletin No. 7, Order X-14 also 

contained Amendment 2, granting a similar power to code authorities, 
and Amendment 3, providing that cases to be referred to the U. S. 
Attorneys under X-14 might be first submitted to the State Adjust- 
ment Boards for advice and recominendations. The power granted 
State Directors by this order was to all intents and purposes re- 
voked after the creation of the Regional Office system, by Field 
Letter 196 (February 2, 1935). 



9861 



-62- 

Incidental to the improvement in procedure as to unadjusted cases, 
X-14 had the practical asuect of placing tne State Offices m direct con- 
tact withthe various District Attorneys. Turourn this inedium tne field 
adacd to its experience m tne proper investigation and preparation of 
cases intended for action b/ the Depart aent of Justice. But, through 
these contacts also there was brougnt ho^ne to tne Stc^te Office personnel 
witn incre£>sing force the constitutional wc„ kncsses and the legal diffi- 
culties involved m the whole coiaolieuce program. 

./loreover, the amended procedure of X-l-i, by its v-^-ry torms, was 
limited to a small proportion of the cases ho.ndled. The vast raajority 
was still suoject to the regu.lar procedure l&id down in Bulletin 'io. 7. 

Having considered in detail tne plan of procedure on the basis of 
complaints, it is interesting to recall the underlying tneory of com- 
pliance procedure, expressed at the beginniig of tnis discussion on 
Bulletin No. 7, namely. 

" the speedy cli;Tiin..^tion, by adjustment, of 

such noncompliance as is due to misunderstanding, and the 
prompt prosecution of all cases of wilful nonconoliance. " (*) 

Tnis purpose failed of accomplisnment because of three -najor 
reasons: a cumbersome, inflexible procedure, based solely on tne passive 
policy of waiting for complaints to be filed and for -oniiealtny situations 
to become so tggrevated as finally to be reported; a lack of an 
bdequ^tely trained and sufficiently large field adjustment staff to 
operate really successfully under any olan of procedure; and tne inherent 
absence of a sound legal basis for oroceeding, concerning the improve- 
ment of which little was ever done to facilitate tne final decision of 
the Judiciary so that the basis inight eitner be firmly establisned or 
discarded for a constitutional one. In connection with the last basis 
of failure, the weak-kneed and vacillating enforcement policy grew 
finally to be looked uoon by industry, laoor and the public as a suffi- 
cient proof that tne Administration was acting in bad faith. 

The field offices, and those members of the 'Washington staff coming 
into more or less direct contact with field problems, strained every 
effort to eliminate tne first cause by developing and adopting on their 
own initiative improvements and modifications of the established pro- 
cedure. These procedure developments did mucn toward putting the Com- 
pliance Division on a sound operating basis. However, it was manifestly 
beyond tneir power to remove the second and tnird causes, both of which 
were fundamental problems in compliance admnistration. 

Section 2 - Development of a ne"^ comoliance jrocedure . As experience 
grew in tne nendling of cases, gradual changes were made in the pro- 
cedure for action on complaints. As these changes became established in 
practice they were usually mcae known to the field as a whole in the 
form of instructions in lield Letters. 



(*) See Note ID. 5'5 suora. 



9861 



-63- 

Thus, in Field Letter 48 (January 2'i, 193'i) experience with the 
handling of anonymous complaints reflected itself in the following 
clarification of Bulletin No. 7; 

"Anonymous complaints will te subjected to a more 
searcnmg analysis before tnev are acted upon than will signed 
complaints. If, however, aft^r close exa.unation an anonymous 
complaint appears on its fcce to be genuine and to state a code- 
violction it should be handled -xs any other complaint." (*) 

The field staff soon learnea tne' value of thorougnly investigating 
and fully adjusting a case. adjustment depended to a 1 rge measure on 
investigation. If the activity oi tne office v/c-s restricted to a single 
employee who n^a filed a complaint, there w. s likely to be later com- 
plaints by other employees, vhich would necessitate the retracing of 
steps. This was clearly an inefficient use of facilities, ^urtner, it 
tended to create resentment on the o^ rt of the employer at being 
suoposedly singled out for persecution. Tnen cilso, under this method 
violctions tended to accunulrte so that wnen the complaint reached the 
adjustment stage back Wcge restitutions were sometimes large .-nd burden- 
some. This method also had tne ^daitional dist-dvantage of not lending 
itself to a program of educating employers so as to enticipate future 
cases of noncompliance. 

Accordingly, it became the practice, as the use of Field Adjusters 
increased, to investigate tne entire pa5''roll, so as to discover all the 
violctions which mignt exist. The various offices grew to require a 
complete adjustment of back wa^■;•es due all employees. This widened scope 
of investigation and adjustment helped to allevif. te some of the evils of 
the complaints system by removing the necessity for more than one in- 
vestigation, except xn p rticul rly difficult cases and where the em- 
ployers were o rsistent violators, ^nd by furnishing an effective medium 
for educating tne employers to bring their op-irations into continued 
compliance. This nev; procedure w,.s lIso characterized by tne placing of 
more emphasis on tne use of Field Adjusters. 

It '.Tc'S also found necessary to make investigo.tions on what appeared 
to be bona x'ide rumors ana well-gro-onaed suspicions. This vras brought 
about by the strong insistence of respondents tnat their competitors be 
maae to conform also t,nd b/ tne realization txiat a permanent compliance 
program must be bastd on a tnorougn educational program among members of 
industry and the protection of tne complying business men from nis com- 
petitor '.vho violated tne code. This was tne germ of a new idea of 
operation known as "mass co iipliance" , (**) that is, the direction of com- 

J*) i ield Letter 48, p. 1. 

(**) Discussed in detail below, p,-,rt III, Chapter 711, as a solution 
to the problems t rising from tne metuod of handling labor com- 
plaints, '"'nile rasss co-npliance is spoken of nere as a new idea, 
it found ample precedent in tiie admiiis.trative efforts of the 
State Labor Lepartments, many of \.iich used tne inspection system 
in enforcing labor la.-'s, (U.S. I/ept. of Lcbor, ''omen's Bureau 
Bulletin 51, pp. 26o-269, 307-308) and m tne Trade practice Con- 
ference procedure m vogue with tne Federal Trade Com,iission, 
(Annual report of je^ieral Tr.,de Commission, 1932, pp. 51-54). 

9861 



- 64- 

pliancc activities against a group as a self-initiated project, rather 
tuan ;:- single proceeding against one employer on the basis of a com- 
plaint filed by some third o^rty. 

In adaition to m:-GS compliance activities, '-/nich were \isually m 
tne form of a survey, anotner vfriation from the comolamts ole.n \7as 
observable in isolated investigations, not connected with a survey or 
planned project, and originating vi/ithout tne formal filing of complaints. 

Thus, there might coiae to the attention of tue field office a 
rumor that a certain employ r '7as m violction, or tne office might feel 
strongly from its general knowledge oi' industry conditions that a con- 
dition of noncompliance e:-isted. In such c^'ses, the aooropriate Com- 
pliance Officer caused investigations to be made by Zield Adjusters, 
even thougn no formal comolaint haa ever been filed. The procedure 
folloviTed in ;;.djusting ■violations found by tiiese methods v,'as tne seme as 
that used where action was the result of comol.-iints being filed. 

The above aescribed faults of tne complaints system and the 
correctional developments evclved ere more applicable to labor com- 
pliance than to tne tr,, de practice on^;se. 3y its very nature the letter 
type of violation \':es more susceptible to treatment on a complaint basis. 
There were '^ ide variations m individua.l cases, unlike labor violations, 
which fell in certain fairly well-defined classes. Complaints were 
usually controversies between tne respondent and particulcT competitors, 
while noncomoliance with labor provisions affected the total relations 
of the employer viiith his v.orkers and tended to cause a. general disturbance 
of tne labor standcrds of the industry. 

An interesting sidelight on the decreasing emphasis on the strict 
complaints procedure at this j-ixicture is found in instructions to the 
field regarding so-called "multiple complaints." (*) This terra was de- 
fined to include situations where more than one complaint was filed 
against the same employer charging tne same general violation, i.e. 
failure to pay the minimum wage to piecev/orktrs, etc. Such "multiple 
complaints," under the instructions, were to be bound together in one 
file and aocketed as a single case. 

Immediately/- following tnis instruction on "multiple complaints," 
the experiences of the field with the complaints clan of procedure, and 
tne modifications of the system mentioned above, were crystallized and 
a definite break w> s m. de away from the strict complaints basis by the 
issuance of Field Letter 125. As has been mentioned before, Field Letter 
125 undertook to establish a complete, new framework for compliance 
activities. 

The charged procedure tnus cre;,ted recogni'zed the need to discard 
the complaints basis, .:nd recommended strongly the use of office com- 
plaints to initiate activities. (**) Tnese office complaints differed 



(*) Field Letter 119 (June 6, 1934)', p, 3 
(**) Field Letter 125, pp. 9-10. 



S861 



. -65- 

frora the earlier conception of complaints, in tnat the latter were filed 
by third ocrsons presumably nc.ving a first-hand knowledge of the vio- 
lations alleged, while the former class of comolaints origincted with 
nembers of the co;r.pliance staff ana were based on hearsay, r-omors, and 
suspicion. Ti/liile the use of office complaints \.as manifestly open to 
abuse by over-zealous members of the staff, sufficient safeguard existed 
in the practical li:,.ii tat ions of tne investi/^ational facilities of the 
various offices. 

Among the occasions v'here the use of office complaints was 
suggested were; vhere an e.noloyee reported a violo-tion but refused to 
sign a complaint for fear of discharge; -'nere a complaint hc^d been re- 
jected but the office considered the situation allegea should be investi- 
gated; where the complaint having been substantiated the adjuster be- 
lieved tnat violations probably existed in other establishment?, under 
the same mana^:ement; '.There repeated rumors e'listed as to violations in 
an establishment, industry, or locality; '.mere the employer seeking in- 
formation indicated tne existence of a violation. (*) 

The grafting of tnis new type of complaint on the old procedure 
served as sufficient indorsement of mass compliance. Tne new theory/of 
operation- continued to expand v;ith practice and the number of its 
adherents grew larger, so that by the tine the :i.egional Offices began 
to" function m January, 1935, its use as a method of approach to the 
solution of compliance problems had attained fairly wide popularity and 
was well-established among the v..rious field offices. 

Closely allied with this departure from the comolaints basis was a 
growing empnasis on t he use of Jield Adjusters. The value of this type 
of personnel was recognised by the- National Compliance Board as early 
as December 4, 1933. The minutes of- the nineteenth meeting, held on 
that drte, contain tne following statement: 

"Mr. Posner once more raised tne question of orocedure 
where employees were discnarged for entering complaints against 
their employers. Dr. -Altmeyer, (later Second Assistant Secretary 
of Labor and at one time Chief of tne. Compliance Division - 
Autnor's note) urged that field representatives were necessary 
for this type of work. He added that considerable tact and 
labor experience ere necessary.'' 

In ifey and early J-une, 1934 the Compliance Division began to appoint 
"Resident lield Adjusters"-, v;ho were stationed at various strategic 
points outside the cities in which the State Offices were located, ^hile 
these r^esident Pield Adjusters were attached to the v rious State 
Directors' staffs, it was contemplated, that they should exercise semi- 
executive functions, in addition to the regtilcr duties of Field Adjusters. 
Thus, thej;- r'ere generally given a comparitively free hand in the planning 
of their own compliance activities and in engaging in public relations 



(*) See "iote p^64, supra. 



9861 



-66- 

work; Because of the physical distance 'between their official stations 
and the State Offices tnc^re was necessaril;/ a larger reliance on their 
individual discretion ta.:.n in tne ca'oC of ordinary ?ield Adjusters. 

The significance of the a opointmcnt of Resident j'ield Adjusters in 
connection v;ith the departure fro"i tnf comolaints basis of procedure is 
to be found in the following excerpt from uiT. Swooe's letter of J-one 2, 
1934 to St.. te Directoi's on the subject: 

"Undoubtedly a resident Tield Adjuster 'Till hear many rumors 
of violc tion althoui^h no written coiapl^.int may have been filed. 
If 1:he rumor apoe&rs to n, ve substance the ?ield Adjuster should 
make an investigrt ion even in the absence of a specific complaint. 
In only r;re instances snould. tne ?ield Adjuster attempt to £id- 
just it by writing a lett-r 

"The (jrlesident) ?ield Adjuster must spend the greater portion 
of his time on outside worli, contactinj;' the employers and investi- 
gating not only filed complaints, but also rumors of violation 
Thich may come to hirn. " (*) 

This statement was followed eleven days later by the issuance of 
Field Letter 125 and Supolemjntary ijemorandum IIo. 1 to Bulletin jjo. 7, 
which latter, in iaodifymg the earlier Manual for State Directors, said: 

"The State Lirector must use his own judgment in determining 
the procedure which 'will be most effective and expeditious in a 
particular case. Bulletin 7 does not lay down a set procedure that 
must be rigidly observed in all cases , jfor example, instead of 
Ccrrying on preliminary correspondence, it may be better to send 
an adjuster to interview the respondent or to ask the respondent 
to appear at the office of the State Director." (**) 

Field Letter 125 stressed the value of office and field interviews 
in Adjustment work. It further suggested the elimination of a formal 
notice to the respondent giving the substance of the complaint, and the 
substitution tnerefor of a letter containing merely a brief invitation 
to call at the Compliance Office. It likewise recoimnended the practice 
of dispensing with all preliminary correspondence, and making tne initial 
contact with tne respondent by means of a field interview. (***) 

(*) In NHA Studies Special Ixnibits Tork materials #77. ; Ibid, p. 5. 

(**) "Supplementary uiemorandum ilumber One ".Relative to Adjustment of 

Complaints", p. 1 (underlining supplied). In spite of tne under- 
lined portion of the quotation, it has been oreviously pointed 
out that the converse is true. This '.vas clearly an attempt to 
■ rationalize and to reconcile this memorandum, Field Letter 125 
(both issued by the Compliance Division), and the actions of 
various field officials with the procedure created by the Admin- 
istrator in Bulletin i>Jo. 7. 

(***) Field Letter 125, p. 11. 



9861 



-57- 

In this connection Field Letter 125 ss'id; 

"The Compliance Officer is under no obligation to establish 
the fact that a complaint has been filed, x^or the protection of 
the complainant it is udviseble m many instances not to inform the 
employer that a specific complaint has been filed -.gainst him." (*) 

Field Letter 12d also provided a giaide for the thoroughness of 
investigation. A detailed account of the proper contents of the case 
files v/as given, and a questionnaire form for intervie-vs with employers, 
as well as a form for abstracting payrolls, were included. (**) 

Thus, it is seen that, beginning with Field Letter 125, Jiine 13, 1934 
and m the period of development that followed, m.^rked departures were 
made from the cumbersome, inflexible, and largely ineffective procedure 
established by the Regulctions of October 19, 1933 issued to District 
Compliance Directors and by Bulletin Mo. 7, covering State Directors and 
Code Authorities. Under the old procedure all cO'ipliance activity was 
supposed to be predicated on complaints, which- had to fulfill certain 
technical requirements, and almost the entire burden of proof, as well as 
the initiative, was thrown on the complaining employees and competitors. 

The nei-Y procedure was developed out of tne necessities of experience, 
influenced greatly by the powerful psychological factor of a new reporting 
system whereby field offices felt that their efficiency, value and 
reputations were on constant judgment by the number of violet ions dis- 
covered and adjusted and. the amount of back wages collected. (***) Less 
and less stress was laid on tne filing of complaints and on the important 
place of the complainant in compliance procedure, except as one source 
of information. The use of complaints as the basis of proceedings was 
never entirely eliminated, altnough it was generally contemplated by 
persons connected with compliance activities that a decided step would be 
made m that direction after the passage of the new legislation which was 
pending when the Supreme Court decision m tne Schechter poultry case 
abruptly terminatea all efforts at code compliance. However, it should 
be noted in illustration of the final relative unimportance of complaints 
that on May 21, 1935, in a letter to all Regional Directors, the Chief 
of the Compliance Division placed a virtual statute of limiations on the 
filing of complaints, leaving each office to exercise its own discretion, 
according to certain standards, in determining whether or not the com- 
plainant had been guilty of laches in failing to report the violation 
promptly. (****) 

T*) Ibid, p. 12. 

(**) Ibid, pp. 19-20, 24, 27. 

(***) See Chapter III, pp. 29-30, for a discussion of the effect of this 
reporting system on the evolution of an adjustment policy. A 
brief description of the system of reporting is there given. 

(****) A copy of this letter is included in the appendices. It pro- 
vided that the offices should be guided by the following general 
rules of thumb: ordinarily, a complainant still employed ought 
to report the violation within 60 days after it had occurred; 
an employee who had been discharged or dismissed should file com- 
plaint T;ithin 30 days thereafter. 

9861 



"63- 

Of course, betveen J^one-, 1&34 end iviay 27, 1835 there '.7ere many 
developments in compliance tecnnique and m minor oracedural points. 
However, for the sake of brevity at tnis fio^nt these developments are 
left to discussion in subs^-quent sections ^■.•n^re they v/ill be treated in 
detail. 

One more modification of Bulletin ilo. 7 should be mentioned here 
as having a noticeable effect on the raoveraent to discard the complaints 
basis. ' By Administrative Order the practice of sending' complaints to 
Code Authorities "on reference" for adjustment '.":as abolished as of June 
15, 1934, (*) This class of complaints was thus adaed directly to the 
onus of the field offices and it became, to a very slight degree, easier 
to treat a.ll complaints accoraing to the ne-vly formula,ted procedure. 

The order furtner provided that Code Authorities which had been 
authorized to handle particular tynes of complaints "in the first in- 
stance" would continue to operate in the same manner under the designation 
"officially authorized". Tnis '/as important because the Code Authorities 
which hcd been authorized to handle labor complaints were mainly organized 
to operate on an inspection or mass coraplionce basis and, therefore, 
indirectly additional impetus was given to the movement away from a 
strict complaints system. 



(*) Administrative Order a-29 (uiay 12, 1934). 



9861 



J 



-69- 

Section 3 • The ktveltpment of the use of Field Adjusters. Under the 
priginal procedure for District Compliance Offices , as shown in the 
first section of this chapter, the initial step in the actual handling 
of an accepted complaint was to notify the resp'^ndent nf the suhstance 
of the violation charg'ed and to invite his answer thereto. A copy of 
the code o,ncl an explanation cf pertinent provisions were also furnished.- 

This first contact, which was almost invariably hy letter, had a 
two— fold purpose. In the first place it was supposed to serve as an ■ 
easy, naturs,l way to lead up to an adjustment. At that time adjustment 
had as its gnal the ohtaining of present conformity with the code and 
the assiji'ance of future cnmplia.nce. Little attention was paid to re- 
compense for past violation'.. Consequertly, the sira^ilest method of 
approach was to say to the re?pond3nt, "It ha^ been aJ Icged that you 
have viola,ted the cods foe your industry "by paying your night watchman 
less than the minim-um wage. The code providso that you must pay this 
class of enr-loyee not lerjs than at the rate of $1B.00 per wrek. Of 
course, if these facts aro true, we realii^e the violation was prohatly 
due to ignorance cr inadvertence. Therefore, we invite you to furnish 
us with your explanation of the alove complaint, preferably in the form 
of a sworn statement." (■*") The probably effect of such a letter on 
the respondent in shaping his answer to the complaint is obvious. 

In the socond place, the notification sent to the respondent was 
intended to fulfill certain legal requirements vhich were supposed to 
pxist. It was felt that the constitutional prohibition against de- 
priving a man of his property without due process of law (?9*) made it 
necessary to adopt a semi- judicial attitude and to furnish the re- 
spondent with notice ff the charges against him and an opportunity to 
be heard in his own defense. While common fairness supported the latter 
part of this conclusion, it was fo\ind to be administratively unwise to 
deal with violations in a manner so resembling judicial procedure. 

This feeling toward the restrictions of due process of law was 
closely allied with the dual presumption r>f the innocence if alleged 
cod«? violators and the lack of intent to violate where noncompliance 
was established. This, in turn, lead to the logical conclusion that 
the b\u?den of proof should properly be tn the complainant. The pre- 
supposition, insofar as labor complaints were concerned, that the em- 
ployer and employee stood on an actual yaxity in ability to enforce 
their lepal equality of rights, seems to conflict with one of the 
underlyin^^ theories of labor legislation. In an early leading case 



(*)' This is a paraphrasing of the form letter actually used by 
District Compliance Directors. See note p. 53 supra. 

(**) Constitution of the United States, Fifth Amendment, "No person 
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due 
process of law." 

The reasoning placing a strict application of this principle so 
as to require a formal notice to the respondent in the initial 
handling of a complaint. is of questionable soundness, since 
neither the regulations were prpmxilgated nor were administrative 
sanctions invoked at this stage of proceeding. 



3861 



"To- 
upholding the right of a state .tuider its pol.ic.ei'power to enact lahor 
legislation limiting the hours of emplo/meiit of men working in mines 
and sraelters, the United States Supreme Ccui't said: - ' 

"The legislature has also reco£;ni2ed the fact, which 
the experience of legislators in many states has 
corrohorated, that the pioprietors of these es- 
tahlishments and their operp.tives do 'not stand upon 
an equality, and that their interests are, to a 
certain extent, conflicting. The former naturally 
desire to ohtain a,s much lohor as possible from 
their emplOj'-ees, "hile the latter are often in- 
duced hy the fear of discharge to conform to regu- 
lations which their judgment, fairly exercised, 
would pronounce to he detrimental to their health 
or strength. In other words, the proprietors lay 
doTTi the rules and the laborers are practically 
contraihed-itiD ohey them. In such cases self-interest 
is often an -Dnsafe guide, and the legislature may 
promptly interpose its authority." (*)' 

"Originally, such inve'^t igation as was made had to "be conducted 
thro\3gh correspondence and office interviews with the respondent. The 
respondent usually denied the existence of the violation or pleaded 
ignorance rjid good faith and professed a desire to comply in the 
future. On this hasis the case was closed as adjusted. 

Field offices were forced to accept at their face value state- 
ments and ai'fidavits of respondents, which "by e^xperience and "better 
reasoning the fiel'd officials knew to "be false. Conscientious mem'bers 
of the field staff chafed and fretted under this spurious, legalistic 
procedure and made varied attempts to improve the situation. The dis- 
advantages of this system communicated themselves to the officials in 
T/ashington, so that, in discussing the plan for a permanent govern- 
ment al compliance mci,chiner:/ , the National Compliance Director said, 

"Like the temporary arrangement, t'nis plan provides for 
a regional system t'o a.id in the adjustment of Complaints 

of violations of approved codes. Like the tempora,ry 

arrangement, it is l^aaed upon the hypothesis that the 
great majority of complaints are due to mis\mderstandings 
v;hich can he adjus'ted hy education and information, hy 
correspondence and conference . It is also hased upon 
the hypothesis that to effect tnis, there must he well 

informed agents in the "field to adjust the case 

vfhere it arises and to make fai'' findings of facts. 

" These State Director, s will have e sufficient staff 

of assistants end adjusters to develop the facts and 
adjust complaints hy education and information at the 
"olace where the complaint arises, as far as is prac- 

tica"ble.i' (**) 

(*) Holdsn V. Hardy, 169 U. S. 365, I.e. 397, 42 L. Ed. 780 (1898). 
See also CoDimons and jlndrews, "Principles of Labor Legislation" 
(Harper and Brothers, 1916) pp. 23-30. 
(**) TTillipjn H. Davis, national Compliance Director, "KFJI Plans for 

Code Compliance," December 5, 197i3. 
9851 



-Vi- 

It came then -to be realized as a func.aiTientrl conception of com- 
pliance aujninistration that investigation and adjustment vere inter- 
dependent f.nd inseoaratle, and their com'bination vras an indispensable 
element in the enf orcenent of the codes. The r'orl: of adjustment had 
as a prerequisite a thorough Icnonled-e of the facts, pnd. investij^ation 
V'as of little moment if the evils discovered '7ere not suhseqxientlj" 
corrected. 

TTith the creation of Field Adjuster positions under the State 
Office system, and the growing recognition of the value of personal 
contact V7ith employers and of active investigation, the ne\r class of 
personnel soon assijmed large importance in the organizations of the 
various offices. 

In the "beginning, Field Adjusters wei-e largely untrained for their 
I'orh, although meny had practical Lusiness experience or a rudimentary 
knowledge cf la.-'-' or accounting. Their use, at first, as provided in 
Bulletin To. 7, v/as to act as a supplement to correspondence and 
office intervie\"s, investigating onl.y those cases v'hich vere not ad- 
justed by the latter tro methods. lio-'evor, as ex-perience grew in the 
use of field inspections rnd "field intervie-.'s, the compliance staff took 
grea.ter cognizance of the advantages of an adequate, vrell-trained group 
of field men. On the part of the progressive element in the Compliance 
Division, ■ t lecast, there was, a corresponding conscious effort to train 
Field Adju.cers 3-nd to place sone requirements on the positions, r.hich 
bore a rea- enable relation to the c'etex-mins.tion of the fitness of 
applicants and incionbents to fulfill th.'5 fu:ictions. 

It has been alrerxio^ noted tliat by Jujie, ISC ■'I the use of Field 
Adjusters in the initial investigation and adj-astment of complaints had' 
been so increased that Field Letter 125 sug.-ested the abandonment of the 
first letter of notification to the respondent in favor of an informal 
invitation to a.n office intervievr or an rjiannounced visit by the Field 
Adjuster to the respondent's place of business. (*v In connection with 
the latter alternative, Field Letter 125 Said, 

"In the res-olting interview hears of work and scale of 
rages a.re discussed and the situation c^n be cleared 
or adjusted frankly ajad vlthout resentment, since the 
adjuster has the opportunity to seek the employer's 
■ cooperation before he has built up an attitude of 
resentment rind defensiveness ." (**) 

Thus, it is seen that Field Lt^tter 125 contemplated that the initial 
steps to'jard the adjustment of cases should be ta^-en by the Field Ad- 
justers. This attains significance as & token of the changes going on 
in the Compliance Division, its policies, methods of organization, vrtien 
it is compared v'ith the original provision of Bri-lletin Ho. 7, previously 
mentioned, and office interviews. 



(*) Supra, p. 67 ; Field Letter 125, p. 11 
(**) Ibid p. 12. 

9851 



-7?- 

At this point, Ijricf inention slip-old "be made of th.e approintment 
of Resident Field Adjusters, as another evidence of the movement to 
direct adjustment efforts as much as possihle to inspections and in- 
terviews at the situs of the violt.ticn;, the respondent's place of 
"business. This was in harmony with the statement of William H. Davis, 
National Compliance Diructor, 

"The plan provides for at least forty-eight State 
Directors. In certain of the la.vge stctes, it may "be 
necessary to have branch offices. These State Directors 
will have a sufficient stsi"f of assistojats and adjusters 
to develop the facts ano. adjust complaints hy ediication 
and information at the place where the complaint arises, 
as far as is practicable. 

" it may become necessrr;/ for State Directors to place 

representatives out in the field in coi.imunities T^rhere 
a great volume of unadjusted complaints arise." (*) 

The ideas embodied in the above qtioted statement received recog- 
nition after experience in code compliance i^orl; had brought about the 
realization on the part of field executives that a proper under- 
ste,nding of compliance problems necessitsted their becoming familiar 
v/ith actual eraplc;rment and competitive conditions. liJliile a part of 
this process of attaining familiarity with the problems included actual 
contact with employers aJid '-forl-ers at the place of employment, and, in 
the case of trade pra.ctices, with competing business men, the time 
element involved in the exercise of executive functions precluded the 
needed comprehension's being based entirely on first-hand laiowledge . 
Consequently, the State Offices were practically constrained to de- 
pend largely on the i-eported eicperience of their field agents for their 
factual bacitgrounds . 

Therefore, af-uer the definite indorsement placed on their use by 
Field Letter 125, it v/as natural tha.t the Field Adjusters were intrusted 
with a large proportion of the public relations v/ork, in connection with 
the adjustment of cases. Included in this term were the creation of in- 
dustrial good v;ill toward the State Office, and the education of em- 
ployers to their obligations and to the ar-.s and benefits of NBA, Many 
offices instructed their adjusters tr exert themselves to create the im- 
pressions of fairness and of desire to assist the employers in their 
difficulties. Likewise, it was a. stand.ard duty of Field Adjusters to aid 
the employers in installing and maintaining adeauate sets of records. It 
was also cu's ternary to advise and help in preparing petitions for exemption, 
etc., where considered by the State Office to be justified. It is not to 
be understood by this last that the State Offices took the initiative in 
this respect, other than by advising respondents of their rights, where 
necessary. By 'a careful, slow building up of a reputation for fairness, 
and by the equallj'' gradual creation of good \7ill throiogh education, the 
State Offices pursuing this policy were able to gain sufficient prestige 
to partially offset a shifting public opinion and the enforcement failures 
in the courts. 



(*) Hotep.rvg supra. 



2851 



As a part of tlie cycle of development, tlie grorring popularity of 
tae mass compliance systen of opera.tion necessarily added r'eifrh.t to the 
already strong emphasis on the use of Field Adjusters. 

In A'v-W^^ 't » 19?4, Field Adjusters received an added minor function. 
By Office Order it was established that Divisional and Deputy Adminis- 
trators having hefore them petitions f or gzssmptions, etc., might re- 
quest the Chief of the Compliance Division to a.ssign field investiga- 
tors to discover any pertinent and desired factus.l data. (*) Although 
definite figures concerning this iiss of Field Adjtisters are not available, 
it is not believed that t-his procedure ever attained real importance 
generally. It is mentioned chiefly as fin illustra.tion of the trend 
of opinion on this general subject* 

Although the main tendency was in conformity with .the suggestion 
in Field letter 125, to initiate action on a complaint by na.king a 
field investigation, ne/'ertheless corx-espondence and office interviews 
contimied to be used in a large muiibcr of the Sta,te Offices, mainly^ 
in connection with cases involvinr;; the sei-vice trades and other in- 
trasta.te i: .".us tries where , it was dosired to conserve the time of the 
Field Adjusters in the i?ifsre3ts of efficiency. In at least one office 
(**) it wac the practice thrcurhcu-c the history- of compliance ac- 
tivities to rely chiefly on office interviev.'s . Ho.wever, this last was 
due to unusual circumstances euid cannot be telzcn as representative of 
all the field offices. 

Section 4 - The direction and supervision of Fie2,d Adjusters . Closely 
allied with the dovelcpuent of the Internal organizaiion of field 
offices, discussed in the preceding chapter, and the increased use of 
Field Adjusters in compliance ror]:, just mentioned, is the topic of the 
control and supervision over the adjustment staffs of the various 
offices. ., It is obvio-as that, in an organization in which the actual 
investigation and a.dj^\stment of cases wa,s delegated to subordinates, 
on whoce individual ju6.gment, discretion and tact much reliance was 
necessp.rily placed, it was of prime importance that the executive staff 
of the field office should devise some thorough-going and workable 
system of supervision and control. This problem of the direction and 
supervision of the daily activities of Field Adjusters did not begin to 
have significance until about the late spring of 1934, because the 
occasion for the development of this phase of intra-office organization 
had not yet arisen. (***) However, with the developments in compliance 
procedure which brought the tise of Field Adjusters to the fore, the same 
experience that had pointed out the fallacies in the original organiza- 
tion scheme of B"uiletin T.o . 7 sho^/ed the necessitj'^ nf the Labor 

("*) Office Order 107 (August 4, 1934) . Reiterated in Office Manual, 

III-3233.5. 
(**) The Hew Yorh City Office. Here the extreme concentration of 

ind-..3try in a. relatively s.apll area, the presence of a large 

num'.er of Code Authoritj" offices, and . the existence of other 

locrl factors and characteristics contributed to mal:e this 

the most effective procedure. 
(***) For the reason that f^w Field Adjusters were appointed before 

that time. See Chapter IV, "The Origin and Development of 

Field Offices," supra. 

9861 .... . . 



-74- 

Compliance 'Officer's organizing, directing- and supervising the efforts 
of the persons -under him, to whom had been delegated the task of carrying 
out his hroad function:; o2 o"btainin;" labor compliance, (*) 

However, even as early as Bulletin Uo. 7 some provision was made 
v/hich included the activities of Field Adjusters in the general organi- 
zation plan. It v/an there provided that the Labor and Trade Practice 
Compliance Officers shculd be responsible for the assignment of com- 
plaints to their Field Adjusters and for the supervision of their 
activities in raalcing necessary investigations. Field Adjusters were 
also to make daily and v?eekly suininaries of their activities in addition 
to reports on each complaint handled by them. (**) In addition to 
these general instructions, there v/as prescribed a form for the Ad- 
juster's report. (***) This report form included questions concerning 
the name and address of the employer, the naiae and position of the 
person interviewed, the nature of the records examined, a description 
of the violation discovered, the emyjloyer's attitude and any statements 
made by him, and the Adjuster's recommendations for further disposition 
of the case. There were also in Bulletin No. 7 (****) and in the form 
designated as "Instructions to SERA Adjusters", (*****) general state- 
ments of the method of approach to be tal:en by Field Adjusters in in- 
terviewing employers. These instructions stressed the fact that the 
Field Adjuster had no authority to require the production of records 
or the furnishing of information. 

At first glance, it appears that the provisions for the direction 
and supervision of Field Adjusters, mentioned above, served as an 
adequate treatment of tT:e subject. However, it m.ust be remembered in 
this connection that there were few. Field Adjusters on the State Office 
staffs at this time and their use v/as limited by Bulletin No. 7 to 
supplement the two more popular methods of adjustment, namely, corres- 
pondence and office interview. (******) it should be noted also that 
there was no clear provision for a system of initially training Field 
Adjusters and of critically reviewing their work. Because of the 
relative unimportance' of this class of personnel in the general comr- 
pliance procedure provided in the early period tmder the State Office 
system, and also due to the generally loose organization and the infcra- 
office jurisdictional difficulties existing during thir tage of develoT)- 
ment, little attention was actually paid by the State- Offices to the 
previously described instructions and to the use of the Adjuster's 
report form. (******* ) 

(.'') As pointed out in Chapter IV, Section 4, in the late spring 

and early summer of 1934, when the problem of supervising the 
Field Adjusters became' important, the actual organization 
of field offices had been changed so that the Adjusters were 
placed under the Labor Compliance Officer, instead of under 
him and the Trade Practice Comoliance Officer, as provided 
lin Bulletin No. 7, p. 19. 

(**) Bulletin No. 7, page 19. 

(***) In NRA Studies Special Exhibits Work Materials #77 

(****) Bulletin No. 7, pages 19 and -30. 

(*****) A copy of this form is included in the appendices. It was 
largely a restatement of tha provisions in Bulletin No. 7. 

(******) Section 3, "The development •f the use of Field Adjusters," 
p. 59, supra. See also Bulletin No. 7, pp. 15, 18-20. 

(*******) Chapter IV, pp. 54r^58. 

3861 



-75- 

Coincidentally with the development of the internal organization 
of the various field offices a,nd the increased emphasis on the use of 
Field Adjusters, the various State Offices hegan to develop make- 
shift systems for reviewing and supervising the work of their Adjusters, 
Inasmuch as Field Adjusters came to he used more in the lahor phase of 
compliance, the duty of evolving these methods of control fell \\pon the 
Le.hor Com-nllance Officers. Thus, in some of the states the Adjusters 
were required to fill on.t m^xe comprehensive reports than the question- 
naire form originally supplied, ( *) Likev^ise, there came into use in a 
few of the offices "closure sheets" which were placed on top of the file 
and which were designed to contain a "brief sumrririry of the history of the 
case and its didpositi'^n. These "closure sheets'' and the more com- 
prehensive case reports required, were cofnhined with a critical review 
of the handling of each individual complaint. In some offices there 
were initiated system? for gai'^ing the productivity of individual 
Adjusters, ^ iiicii, Logc--her with the rcviev? of individual cases, served 
as a concrels method for j'.nalyzing the effectiveness of the adjustment 
staff, Conr.equen-oly, a fa-irly adequate check on the application of 
standards ^ .d policies of adj-ustme:?! and investigation could he made, 
which served as a "basis for co:astruv:cive improvements in operating 
efficiency. 

This prohlem of supervision and. control, which was primexily a 
mechanical one, had recognition in Field Letter 125 which made use of 
the individual attempts of development, just mentioned, and passed 
them on to all the field offices in the form of suggestions. Field 
Letter 125 provided more definitely for the ' assignment of work to the 
Field Adjusters "by the Lahor Compliance Officers. It also created 
certain requirements f or 'ithe neces5^.ry records on each ca.se and made 
suggestions as to fne proper techniaue 'of investigation. 

The effect of Field Letter 125 is this respect was to crystallize 
the standards of v.'ork of the Field Adjusters and thus to estahlish a 
general measurin™ rod for judging whether or not a case had "been 
properly handled. 

Forms also vrere provided hy this Field Letter covering the in- 
formation to he ohtained from hoth complainants and respondents, 
records of interviews held on particular cases, abstracts from paj'^rolls 
and time records, and a do.ily record of the productivity of each Ad- 
juster. It was further cojitemplated that the case files should include 
complete reports on the history of the case and detailed descriptions 
of its investigation and adjustment. (**) 

TTnile these instructions and forms included in Field Letter 125 
do not appe; r to vary greatly fro'n tne similar provisions of Bulletin 
No. 7 and forms issued in connection therewith, the real distinction 
lies in the:.r different applications. By June, 1934, when the latter 
instructions were issued, the principle had been developed that La-hor 
Compliance Officers were in complete charge of the Field Adjusters, 
su'bject Only to the nominal supervision of the State Directors. (***) 



( *) See i.p-jge 7l- supra. 

(**) Field Letter 125, pp. 10, 13, 19-20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31. 

(***) See Chapter IV, pp. 28-40- supra. 

9861 



-76- 

Hadical departures had "been initiated frttin the original complaints plan 
of procedure in that there ras suhstituted for the notice of violation 
and ensuing correspondence, unannounced vicits by the Field Adjusters 
at the respondent's place of "business. (*) Moreover, the policy and 
standards of adjustment had been develpped to include stress on resti~ 
tution and a thoroughness in correcting all violations discovered by 
the investigation of the respondent's business. (**) It i^as natural 
that due to these chpjiges in procedural technique, methods of organiza- 
tion, and philosophies of adjustment, the prescription of new in- 
structions on the direction of Field Adjusters' activities should have a 
novel significance. 

A further method of perfecting efficiency of organization of ad- 
justment staffs was proposed by Field Letter 125 in the holding of 
reg-ular staff meetings. It was suggested that these meetings be con- 
ducted by the Labor Compliance Cffi^crs about once a week, outside 
regular working hours. They were to be in the nature of round-table 
discussions of current practical compliance problems. Through this 
means experience could, be interchr^nged, and the Labor Compliance Officer 
would be given an added opportunity to instruct his stGJff . (***) While 
the value of this plan, as a nethod of supervision and for the ptirposes 
or training and instruction, was apparent, but few of the offices were 
able to pu.t it actually into effect. The constant demands on the tine 
of the entire adjustment staffs in the various State Officers was so 
great, that the development of the idea was retarded and it was pre- 
vented from coming into liniversallj'' regular use. Suffice it to say, 
that its inchote worth in improving the compliance machinery was 
generally recognized by the field offices, and, wherever possible, it 
was adopted at least in modified form. 

It was also stiggested that particular codes be assigned to in- 
dividual Field Adjusters. This was to give the Adjusters an opportunity 
to specialize. It was realized that where warranted by local factors, 
it was desirable for the Field Adjuster handling a case to be fsiiiliar 
with conditions in the industry londer the code and to have established 
lines of information from le^bor union officials, tr3,de associations, 
etc. (****) This specialization idea was tried in a number of the 
offices following the issuance of Field Letter 125. In some it was soon 
abandoned as impracticable for local use, while in other State Offices 
it received fairly intensive application thereafter. 

In the period that succeeded June, 1954, the various State Offices 
continued to improve on the suggestions embodied in Field Letter 125. 
While ill some of the offices faarly adequate methods of control and 
supervision over Field Adjusters were finally devised, the goal of a 
standard system for training the personnel, and so directing and super- 
vising the activities of the adjustment staffs as to attain the greatest 
efficiency and results, was never reached. 

T*l See Chapter V, pp. r?,"! 

(**) See Chapter III, pp. lD-19, 1- 

(***) Field Letter 125, p. 28 

(**'*^*)Field Letter 125, p. 29; Supplementary Memorandum No.l, p. 2. 



9861 



-77- 

It is, however, wortiiwhile to mention the general lines along which 
the development of these methods for improving the effectiveness of the 
adjustment staffs took place. Because details varied greatly with 
individual offices, depending on the size of the staff, the volume of 
work, the personal qualities of memoers of the executive and e-djustment 
staf.^s, and other oatsjC.o iactcrs, this discussion necessarily must he hased 
on Qcnarel experience v/ith the efforts cf the field offices in this 
direction. 

In ord -r to attempt to insure the proper application of the nevly 
created str dards of adjustment, it hecane the f,i-.~eral rule that lahor 
and trade pactice complaints could t;- clocad only on the approval of 
the Lahor a-id Trade Practice Complipnce Officers, respectively. 

Because of the ch'-tr.re in inte^^nal orgsnization of the field offices 
at this tine (*) the L'l'cr Compliaice Officers he^an efforts to train 
Field Adjusters in the proper techniques of investigation and adjustment. 
Both ne\7 and old adjusters were reciuired to learn thoroughly the prin- 
ciples of handling cases as set forr/h. in Field Letter 125. However, 
there was little chance for a carefvJ^, intensive training period. Most 
offices had large numhers cf complaints pcnaing, many of them several 
weeks old vmth no action ever having heen taken on thorn other than a 
mere aclcnowledgment sent to the co:nprainant . Consequently many newly 
appointed Field Adjusters duiing this period were assigned to the 
handling of complaiiits after only a very "brief drilling in the fundamentals 
of ITRA and after reading through Bu.letin Ko . 7, Field Letter 125 and 
Bevcral of the codes, Tbe great majority of this new personnel, like 
most monhcrs of the alr-jady existing compliance staffs, were totally 
untradned in the type Oi work they ?/cre to perform. 

This method, dictated "by necessity, of immedia,tely injecting the 
new Field __Adjustcrs into the work prohal^ly was in keeping with the 
theory that a good compliajice technique could Dest he developed from 
actuail experience. However, this procedure v/a.s undouhtedly' a costly and 
inefficient use of the limited, facilities provided for the investigation 
and adjustment of an overwhelming volume of compla.ints. 

As the size of the adjustm.ent staffs grew, the Lahor Compliance 
Officers f c .nd. themselves with no alternative hut qmckly to improvise 
some.wa;'' of correcting the evils of the la^ck of initial training of the 
Field Ac'-jus'.^ers, 

Several means had heen indica.ted hy Field Letter 125. The use of 
daily and iTeekly production records served as an indication of whether 
or not the Field Adjusters were distrihuting their time in such a way 
as to ohtain the maxim"um res'jlts in the adjustment of cases. As a 
supplement to those activity reports, the Lahor Compliance Officers re- 
viewed the case files and reports on complaints handled hy the in- 
dividual adjusters. 

Since it is reuemhered that the Lahor Compliance Officers were 
required personally to handle a fair proportion of the more important 
cases in additioii to the full time tasks of planning labor compliance 

( *) Discussed supra, Chapter IV, pp, oT.'-v.r-. 

9861 



-78- 

activities and training and supervising their staffs of adjusters, it 
is a,pparent that such an arrangement was not adequate to take care of 
the situation* 

In some of the larger offices, recognition was given to the fact 
that it was hxmenly impossi'ble for the La"bor Compliajice Officers to 
perform fully all these duties. In order to alleviate the situation, 
it became necessary to appoint Assistant Lahor Compliance Officers 
and Chief Field Adjusters to whom were delegated many of the details of 
the training of the adjustment staff a.nd the assignment and review of 
cases. By so organizing his functions, the Lahor Compliance Officer 
was enabled, to devote more of his time to instructing individual ad- 
justers on the proper investigation and adjustment of cases. 

Through the knowledge gained from experience in handling com- 
plaints and aided by the slow improvement of the functional orgaji- 
iza.tion of various field offices, the Labor Compliance Officers were 
able to raise gradually the standards of work for Field Adjusters, 
Thus, in varying degrees during the fall and winter cf 1934, the in- 
dividual field offices evolved fairly effective systems of operation. 
In those larger offices having a more complete stpff, provision was 
usua,lly made for the initial training of new Field Adjusters by placing 
them under the tutelage of experienced members of the staff. The re- 
view of the case vjork of both old and nev/ Adjusters was carried on by 
the Labor Compliance Officer or his Assistant by inspecting completed 
files and also by observing individual Adjusters during various stages 
of the handling of the case. 

A few of the offices compiled their own man'oals and compliance 
handbooks which were used primarily as substitutes for initial training 
coiu-ses. The majority of the State Offices, howQ.'er, continued to in- 
duct new Field Adjusters into the work \7ith no real attempt at prepara- 
tory training. Partially to offset the failure to comply v/ith the 
necessity of primary training, there grew to be a tendency to raise the 
qualifications for Field Adjusters by requiring a knowledge of account- 
ing and a faBiiliarity with general business practices, as well as ex- 
perience in meeting the public. 

A few of the offices paid particular attention to the use of a 
record cf the xambor of cases ha ■'-died and back wages collected by in- 
dividual members of the staff during stated periods, usually coinciding 
with the bi-weekly reports of the field offices to Washington. Averaged 
over a, number of weeks, this type of individual adjustment record, when 
weighted by careful consideration of local factors and the review of in- 
dividual cases . served as a fairly accurate indication of staff efficiency. 
Likewise, in some of the State Off ices, • there was adopted tho policy of 
returning for rohaMdling those cases wMch the reviewing officer deemed to 
be unsatisfactorily adjusted. This policy had a double aspect. The 
pointing out of mistalces in individiial causes as thcj)- arose taught the 
Field Adjusters the proper compliance technique in such a forceful manner 
that the same errors were not likely to reoccur. Also, in most offices 
a natural spirit of rivalry existed among the Adjusters. This was a 
logical consequence of the field office reporting system, under which each 
state office felt itself to be on constant judgment on the number of cases 

9861 



-79- 

hanc-lod exid. the araount of "br^ck waf^es collected. In a few offices, to 
a.ccentiiate the poycliolo^^ical effgct of classifying a case as an xm.~ 
Sfi.tisfr.ctory adjustment, a niemorand-uLi stating the errors ?/hich had' 
"been committed in the process of haiidling was inserted and made a 
permanent part of the c-i'^e file, V7here it might "bo seen "by any 
Washington official Irtor inspecting the office. 

The use of a plan for creating a desire among individual memters 
of the adjustment stp,ff to establish records in the quantity of T7ork 
handled was made necessary "by the over increasing numherof old com- 
plaints on "'.end in most of the offices. Ly the '.ust fall 6f 1934, when 
this practice hecaiae ?n vogue in r,ome of the offj.;;.es, it had hecome 
generallj'' '- ocognizod that in order to arrive at a sound, perrnajient tasis 
for operation, the State Offices would need to he free to direct their 
ovrii efforts without the hacipcring restrictions of the complaints plan 
of proccdfre, (*) 

Therefore, thL;re was an added motive for laj'ing stress on the 
qUc-Jitity of v;ork acconplishcd, 3,s woTl as on the quality of adjustments, 
since in order to put bl'.e new plan jf procedure into operation, the 
onerous "burden of unadjartod ecnplamts had fiist to he removed. 

The individual adjustment record plan was spplied in varying forms 
ty different offices. 4,lth6j,^h;tho value of its use as a means of 
keeping check on individ-ual efficiency, indicating needed, personol 
supervision axid i ir;rcasing the volvMe of productxcn, when properly 
correlated with st:',ndards oi q-ja,l? r.y, was a.pparent, nevertheless, as 
follov/ed in sohie offices, the plan had a qucstionahle effect on the 
accomplishment of the goal, of universal, lasting compliance. In this 
connection there shoiiJd he .uentioned 'byvtarf of illustration the plan 
pursued 'hy the San Francisco and Los Angeles, California State Offices. 
In these two offices r.Laost the entire emphasis was laid on the amount of 
hack v;ages collected hy each Field Adjuster. In the San Francisco office 
in particular there was maintained a oullotin hoard on which was posted 
the number of cases h£-.ndlod and the 3;mount of restitution -secured hy each 
particular Adjuster. Ohviously, the purpose of this was to promote the 
natural competitive feeling of merahers of the staff and to incite them to 
increase their collection of hack wages so as to establish a record for the 
office in this respect. 

However, this practice was not followed to any considarahle extent 
in other State Offices hecSause it was generally hclievod that the amount 
of hac]: \7ages collected alone was an. inaccurate gauge for individual 
efficiency. Furthormorvj, it was felt that hy overemphasizing the resti- 
tution feature of adjustment, there was a danger of tending to eliminate 
two essential a,spects of compliance work, najnoly, the creation of in- 
dustrial good will and the education of employers to their obligations 
under the codes. 

After the creation of the Regional Office system, the State Offices 
were enabled to speed vp the disposition of unsd-justod cases. The new 
procedure created for the handling of cases bearing recommendations for 
the removal of HEA insignia or for legal action provided tha,t they 
should be transmitted by the State Offices to their re-spective Regional 

(*) Srpra, pp. S:-6-:, / 
9861 



-80- 

Offices. (*) The close proximity of the xtegional Offices to the field, 
and the enlarged facilities for takin;^ further action on lonad.justed com- 
plaints, tended to remove the previous hesitancy of some of the State 
Offices in referring cases to Washington. (**) As a result, there was 
a relieving outlet for those large numbers of cases, in vhich adjustment 
efforts YJere unavailing, but vdiich the field offices continued to carry 
in their already too big inventories, becaiise of a feeling of the practi- 
cal uselessness of sending them to T.'c shington for further action. 

Thus also, being in fairly close touch with the Regional Directors 
and the Regional Field Representatives, it v/as made easier to suspend 
further effort on particular complaints or even entire trades or in- 
dustries where a thoroiogh knowledge of compliance conditions and past ex- 
perience in adjustment work clearly indicated the probable futility of 
further action. Included in this class were the service trades and other 
strictly intranstate industries which had alwa.ys been prolific sources of 
complaints from employees, and which, under the inflexible complaints plan 
of procedure had served to cause much wasted effort and misdirected use 
of compliance facilities. 

Through this latter modification of the official procedure, there 
naturally came about a change in the standards of investigations and ad- 
justment. This change manifested itself in further developments of the 
plans in the various offices for the supervision and training of the Field 
Adjusters. Thus, there tended to be a division in the assignment of cases 
into classes which were ri.ted according to their relative importance to 
the entire compliance program. 

The cases which were important because of size, o^uestions of policy 
involved, or effect on the industry, were usually assigned to the most ex- 
perienced and better Field Adjusters witn the Labor Compliance Officer 
taking part in their actual handling. Complaints under unimportant and 
intra-state codes, such as the service trades and the Retail Food and 
Grocery Codes, were often handled by newer members of the staff or by 
correspondence. The balance of the work, which may be called "routine" 
cases, were assigned to the staff at lerge according to the plan in the 
particular office. 

Some field offices adopted definite classifications for types of cases 
to effect an additional control over the time of the adjusters, the classi- 
fication of any individual case, hov/ever, being subject to the recommenda- 
tions of members of the staff. To further effect\iate this purpose of 
organizing the work so as to derive the maximum results in efficiency, a 
few of the offices specified the amount of time to be spent on the different 
types of cases. Thus, in the Missotiri Stc^te Office, for example, im- 
portant cases were given an "A" rating; cases in the service trades and 
strictly intra-state industries, as well as in manufacturing and other im- 
portant industries where less than five employees were involved, were 
grouped under "C". All other cases were placed in a "B" class. 

J*) Field Letter 190 ' ~~ 

(**) This hesitancy was due to the fact that there was much delay in the 
disposition of cases sent to TJashington and in some cases further 
action took the form of referring the file back to the State Office, 
perhaps months later, for new attempts at investigation and adjust- 
ment. In such cases, the result of transmitting unadjusted com- 
plaints to Uashington often had a worse effect on compliance than if 
the complaint were merely dropped, since it served to advertise the 
fact that there was no practicable system for punishing violators. 

9861 



-31- 

C.^'-.'Ps cl;"ssecT ns njv" req-'iired '^. thorou.^h inyesti-.'^ation and a, final 
report thereon hr.C. to "oe filed rith the Labor Corapliance Officer vrithin t\70 
\^eeks fron fie date of r,rsi;'~nnent. In "B" cases the Field Adjusters ^7ere 
instructed t » inspect paj-rolls and ohtain statements from employees \7here 
deeraed- advisaole, "but to nr^^ze a sli/-±itl" less intensive investigation tha,n 
in "A" cases. The investigation and efforts at adjustment had to be conpleted 
within one vee]-. "C" c\ses '"ore to oe handled on a one call "basis. The in- 
veGti{;;ation was restricted to present employees and the coi:plainant, since 
Li.su allj'- the estrhlishnents involved rere snail, of relative uniraportance, and 
had -10 adequate" sets of records. But tT'O days nere allo^red for the comple- 
tion of the la.tter tj^pe of cases. 

This and other plans of a similar :_-;eneral nature vrere adop.ted Dy ;.iany 
of the offices. Such a scheme as the one described ?,bove required the en- 
tire staff, includin.^ not o:ily the B'ield Adjusters but the Labor Compliance 
Officer as rell, to work at continuous top cpeed, and was, therefore, im- 
practicp.ble for permanent use. plans for marshalling; adjustment facilities 
and speeding the disposition of casesj however, were made necessary to fore- 
stall a gro'Ting tendoncy on the part of respondents, heightened by adverse' 
court decisions and the dioi;it,ral of the-ijclcher case (*) in the Supreme 
Court by the Government, to procrastinate and to delay the adjustment of 
cases. Such plans were also made necessary to enable the State Offices to 
concentrate their efforts where 3om.e constructive effect on compliance was 
possible of accompilishmont. 

Little has been s-^ic" concerning the m.echanical arran';enents in the 
different field offices fpr the sxxpervision of Field Adjusters, Although 
these plnjas vo,ried ^'idelj^, follc'^in';: the internal orf:anization schemes of 
the particular St'te Offices, (**) there sho..ld be indica,ted the general 
lines followed. 

In has ' ■een previo-isl^- pointed out th' t in some States new Field Ad- 
justers were assi~ned to more eiroerienced aen for training. Some of the 
offices, notrblj^ the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania State Office, went further 
and made perL.anent a.osijjiments of Ssnior Adjusters to supervise the dr.iljr 
work of the other Field Adjusters. Of similar natvire' vras the plan pursued 
b"' a few of the offices v;hereby the functions of investi>:ation and adjust- 
ment "ere divided, the latter .-einy perfor^ied by Cow.plir';nce or Office Ad- 
justers, who xieie usucilly older men on the st -.ff , The pla:^ of assigning less 
Experienced Field Adjusters to Senior Adjusters or other higher ranking 
mem.bers of the staff, either for perm.anent supervision or merely for train- 
ing, was probably follced by most of the offices. 

(*) U. S. V. T. E. Belcher, e.t al. United States Supreme Court, October 
term. 1934, 1-To, 623. The. r-over-i:.;ent« s r j yeal in this case, which was 
designed to test the constitutionality of the Lximber and Timber Prod- 
ucts Code, was volitntarily withdravm-on April 5, 1955, and the appeal 
dismissed l>:f the court. Wide publicity had attended the case, which v^as 
heralo.ed as supposedly the first step in a new program of vigorous en- 

forcer.ent of the codes. , 

(**) S'l-vpra, Chapter III "The Origin and Fevelopmei-.t of Field Offices." 



9861 



-82- 

The rajor -oro'clen tts to evolve aa effective s^^ster. for the orderly 
assigiirient of vroric anC the circction of conplif-nce efforts so rs to olDtr.in 
the inaxinuii results iii efficiency, thxis avoiding duplication of effort. 
At the srxie tine it -'.-.s i.eces'-.;,r ' to drive the adjusters to increase the 
quantity of vrorlr. handled, and yet to keep svxih ca" eful supervision over the 
application of the principles r.nc. standr.ids of adjustment that each case 
handled ^..'dc oe a constr-'ictive step to'-rcrd the education of indasti'^/ and 
the ultimate condition of uiiivcrsal, pernpiient code co.ipliance. 

This standard of accoripliskme;:t p.eer.ec alnost inpossiole of attainment. 
The fulfilliiient of the piu-pose was hindered hy the ahsence of a training 
progran, the lack of standard nualif ications for I'ield Adjusters, and the 
careless, :-;on-scieatific nethod of selecting personnel. Hovfover, gradual 
but continuous prog ess tovrard the goal ras macie through the efforts of in- 
dividual offices in developin;; systens of su ervision and training, the fur- 
ther refine:.-ient of standards and policies in TTashington and the field, and 
the slo'T iT;V:jrovenent of the technifgae jf hanciJ.in''; cases of vi'olati02i. 

Se ction 5 - Te chnicue of investigati on. Ac in the case of methods of super- 
vision over Field Adjusters, little ^jrogress ^7as made in the development of 
the :roocr teclinirjue of investigation during the first si?: months of the Com- 
plionce Division, Under the originrl instivctions to District Conpli'v^ce 
Directors and for several lonths after the crej.tion of the St. ,te Office 
system, the investigo-tion of cases consisted largely*- in taking the conj;)lain- 
ants' state :ent, writing the respondent for his side of the storj/-, \nd perhaps 
intervierring one or hotli the ni'.rties in tJie IUJA office. 

bulletin ilo, 7 provided for the li'uted use of Pield Adj-isters r.nd 
contained some instructions on the technique of investigation, (*) These 
v/ere United to a fev; genera]. rtiJ.es of conduct and a hrief statement of the 
procedure to he follO'.,'ed in field intervievs, (**) ]?or examplfe, Field Ad- 
justers '-'ere instructed not to intervie'.' employees during working hours or 
on the husi;iess px-emises witho-tt the responcent's permission. In making 
a field crl'.. the Adjusters were told first to see the res'oondent ond dis- 
cuss the complaint with hin. In the event the latter admitted the facts as 
alleged, a sta,te;;ent proposing the terms of an adjustment vias to he obtained. 
Likewise, if the respondent took issue onl;' as to the application of the 
Code to the facts, the Field Adjusters -ore to get a clear explanotion of his 
position. 

In the r.oro likel^' "i^Cpe of c-\se, '.-'here the f-cts alleged were denied, 
the instructions were equally ..cant". The Field Adjusters -ere tolc to re- 
quest permission to examine the appropriate records, snch as time cards,' 
pajr rolls, canceled checks, invoices and sr.les slips. In the event such 
permission were refused, Ilulletin ITo. 7 stated that Fiela Adjusters were 
not to insist upon access to the records, br.t m.erely to exiilain to the re- 
spondent th-.t his refusal would oe t.-'^ien as en indication of a desire not to 
adjn.st the con-ol.aint. 



(*) See Section 4. "The Direction .'uid supervision ni' Field Adjusters", 

Slip:.'.?,. 
(**) Bulletin i:o. 7, pp, 19-20, 



9861 



— 5?— 

Thsst instru.ctior.s '..'ere silent .^.s to obt'.inin" evidence of violrtion 
b^" Investig'-.tine; other srarces of informtion. As :i"s been pointed out 
before, since Bulletin YsO, 7 ^'as the ofiici-.l ^-:an-ial for fiel-. office 
cor.iplir.nce r^ctivities, there w'ls a ter-dency to interpret it llterpily. 
Conseraiently, the inpression c^reatod in the Kline's of the field staff 
tevided to be th'it in those cases 'There accasf; to the records '7- s re- 
fused no further investi,:;ation vas necessary. 

rortriJiatelv, hov.-ever, the bad effect o"^ these instructions on com- 
pli'nce technique ijas not so serious a.s V'Ould see:a. Since there rrere 
but fev" rielo Adjusters appointed until the latter -part of the spring of 
1934, there -as little occasio:.: to pa.:- attention to investigational 
technique during the period imi.iediately follov.dng the issuance of Bul- 
letin ITo, 7. Consenuentlj'", the cursoin'- nethods of investi,^' tion which 
seened to be indicated by these inf^trcctions did :-0t becone deepl^^ in- 
grained i:i field office procediu-e. 

Here it is rell to point out that, plthou^;h the forego'in.^ ma";' be 
implied as a criticisr.i of BuJ-letin ITo, 7, at the f.ine those instrvictions 
were issued tjiere existed nrrcticpJl"'' no e;rperience in the use of field 
investigations fron ^7hiGh to drav. It ■'"'s onl;- ri'ter the developed use 
of Field Adjusters, and the changeG in cor;pli3.nce procedxire, standards 
and policies of a.djustnent , and nethods of organir.ation, gradually evolved 
fron the dail;?- errooriencc of handling coripl '.ints, that a practicable, ef- 
fective conpliance technique was cre.xted. 

The inprovenent of the nethods. and scope of investigation follorred 
the general pa,ttern of developnent of the Conpliance division. Indi- 
vidual offices placed higheir stranxLards on the investigation of cases and 
,\ave added instructions to their staffs on the actual nechanics of in- 
specting records anc^ intervierin^ enployees and respondents, ErxDcricnce 
taught certain tricks of the trr>de, sv.ch as reconciling pay roll r-jid tine 
records v.ath production records to d'pterriine accura.cy, and the ps^z-chology 
of obtaining seenin dy vol-ontar^" access to records, 

l2j, the period fron January to Jur\e, l'.""A certain other frag-ientary 
instructions were issued to the field, Por instance, the offices "ere 
told tn ascertain the foiT; of buslnesr. organizp.tion before transnitting 
unadjusted cr.ses t'-^ Washington, (*) In this co'-.nection, there was sent 
to the fielC offices a cide conplo.iht analysis fori: for guidance in pre- 
parin'-; ^ase: for the ilrtional Conplinjice Board, (**) Shortly "i'ter the 
issuance of ■■■ a anrJysis foi'r: it -.Tas found desirable to ur-;c the field 
offices to i'lclude all necessr;,r3'- evidence and infornation in the files, 
so as to facilitate action on unadjusted cases in '"ashington, (***) 

T*) i^ield Letter G2 (Pejraary 15, lPo4) . 
(**) Field Letter 68 (Febr\xary 3S,.1034). 
(***)Field Letter 86 (Uai'ch 22, lJr4)., 



9861 



-84- 

It is to be noted thr.t this 1 \st nentioned grov.p of instructions re-, 
lo-ted onl" to the verzr s^irll T)erce:itr,:;e of cases i7hich rrere forijarded to 
the national Coupliance Director for fm-ther action. Korrever, it shordd "oe 
understood that the ideas enoodied in these instructions for the preparation 
of unadjusted co,se filei, -'ere applied 03- zone of the offices to all con- 
plaints and thiis assisted in shaping their techniques. 

A.s;ain there uas a rrell-def ined chan£;e vith the issuance of Field Letter 
125. The standards of adjxistnent vhich vera pronuJ-gated fLirnished definite 
lines for the development of the thorou^imes:; of investigations. (*) The 
departures from the strict conplaints "oasis of proceedings, moreover, 
■brought alioiit the thorough inspection of the entire payroll and the iiore 
adequate e:-oj:iination of the euployer ::ac:. '"'orkers through personal inter- 
vie'.7s. (**) 

Besides laying dcai standards of the thoroughness and scope of investi- 
gations, 7ield Letter 125 also contained sug ;estions as to the practical 
nechanics to oe enployed. There r/ere included f orris for interviews i"ith em- 
ployees and enpl03'-ers and for a'Dstractrj froa pa-a'olls. (***) The forner 
■^ere designed to serve as guides for the prep3.ration of emploj''ees' state- 
ments and for the information to he secured fro--, respondents. The paj^roll 
form was used for -the cor-ipilation of the specific data needed on hoiu's and 
wages to determine comiDli-.'^iice. 

It was also su — ested liY Field Letter 125 that each office develop 
its ow:i sets of foriis, recording to its needs, covering other aspects of 
the handling- of cases. This they did, a-ad in Jan-ar.ry, 1D35 they were made 
the subject of a study hy the Coordinating Branch of the Compliance Divi- 
sion for the -purpose of stando-rdization. (****) The initial stage of this 
study was cc.pleted and in May, 1935, there were transmitted to the field 
offices for criticisms rnd com/nents the- developed forms, including the fol- 
lowing: report of em-ployer interview, record of interview, request for 
investigation, er.ployee's complrint. Field Adjuster's daily report, resti- 
tution worh sheet, financial statement, tran.script of payroll record, a,nd 
record of employees' time (to be used as a time sheet hy the employer)***** 

It is to be noted with interest that in neither Biilletin Ho, 7 nor 
in r^ield Letter 125 was there any reference to the interstate character of 
transactions involving code violations. This is striking because the Act 
limited criminal penalties and action oy the Federal Trade Commission to 
transactions in or affecting intersta:.e or foreign commerce. (******) 
Moreover, it v;as the general consensus of le-al opinion that the Congress 



(*) See Chapter m, "The Administrative Settlement of Code Violations", 
pp. -->„;6 

(**) See section 2, "Development of a new compliance procedure", p. 6 

(***) These forms are to be found, in the order named," in Field Letter 
125, pp. 22, 24, and 27. 

(****) Field Letter 194, p. 2. 

(*****) Field Letter 214, pp. 1-2. 

(******) See Chapter III, "The A&ii-nistrative Settlement of Code Viola- 
tions", p. 13 



9861 



-SB- 



had based its authoritj;- tc enact the ITational Industrial P.ecoverjr Act on 
its po'"'er t' re^rulate comnerce "betv;een the several states and with foreign 
countries. .It any r£.te, it is iiuada^-nental that tne interstate aspect is 
an essentip"^ int^redient of Pederal jurisdiction over regralatory maas^ares 
of this chrracter, i-jiless bared on so-ie specific constitutional grant of 
authority. 

I'Tot only nere there no instructions during this eca-13'- period, as to 
including an examination of the interstate aspects in the investigation 
of com-olaints, biit no distinctions v/e-e di-8''fn between the tv/o classes of 
commerce in the reg-alations issued to the field governing the adjustment 
of code violations. IJor did an^- of the codes contain definitions of 
ind^astry v-hich -'ers so cyialified as to exclude intrastate members. (*) 

171 th this total lack of emphasis on the interstate character of 
violations in regular adjustment r/orh, it r/as natural that this phase of 
investigational taclinique nas v/eok, even though some development was ma,de 
in obtaining proper eviceiice of the respondent's compliance status. To 
be sure, the code compleiut E,ral'"sir sent to the State Offices vdth Field 
Letter 68 did include questions totLching on this subject, but no sugges- 
tions vrere made as to nhat constitiited proper evidence thereof. 

However, at this point there should be mentioned a.n important in- 
fluence on the inprovenent of investigational technique both as to the 
question of compliance and as to the oroblera of v/hether or not the 
violations found af^'ected interstate commerce. 

Under AC'j.iini sti-£=.tive Order X-14 (April 6, 1934) it v;as provided 
that the State Directors night refer clear cases of unadjusted viola.tions 
direct to t;.e appropriate United Stptes Attornev's for legal action, with- 
out follo'/i :: the reg-ular channels leading thro"'.igh the National Com- 
pliance Director ajn.ci tne j^ational Compliance Board. (**) It has been 
pointed out in an earlier portion of this chapter that the effect of the 
shortened procedure created '^cy this Administrative Order was to place 
the various Sta.te offices in fairly close contact with the ^ocal United 
States Attorneys. Slightly preceding this the Litigation Division was 
established to cooperate v.lth the Department of Justice in the handling 
of all i^RA litigation. (***) Both the Litigation attorneys, who v 
traveled among the State- Offices, ajid the United States Attorneys 
served to acq^aaint the field officials with the legal requirements as to 
evidence, the essential points to be covered by investigation, and the im- 
portance of properl}'- preparing cases. Thrcu^gh the medium of -preparing cases 

(*) IIo-:over, the i.;otor Bus and Transit Codes had definitions which v.'ere 
partiall"^ ouo.lified b-,'- the distinction between inter- and intra- 
state operations, but onl;^ to resolve a conflict in jurisdiction of 
the tv.'o codes. 

(**) Suora, section 1, "Complaints, the basis of procedure," pp. i3?.-61 

(***) Office Order 74 (Liarch 25, 1934). 



9351 



■-86- 

for liti .r.tion, the iienoerG of tlie field st,ri'f ler^rneo. the necBGsitj'- of 
conducting themselves in ■■.' cr.reful ?,nd pruce-.t :.ir.nner 'beyond repror,ch by 
opposintj covjisel, of obt.'.inin-": definite, direct evidence of violations r?jid 
their effect on interstrte co':jnei'ce, a^nd of 'oein^ thoi'-ou'jh iii their -Tork, 

In connection with the -^lecedi;!'' di cnssion it is interesting to ob- 
serve the following instruction to the field offices, 

"The codes re.^-ulate transactions ' in or affecting' inter- 
state cor.rerce. ' The Adiiinistration' s view is tlia.t in the 
present energency the vast hull; of industrial r,nd conniercial 
trrjisactions and activities fall in tkis ca.tef;;oiy, and the 
Adninistration has "ween very succes^fi:! in upholding this 
view in court. Accord in,":ly , in deal inr; with re s':)ondents , 
7/'ou should not "be inf l.uenced "o" any co nt entions on their 
-part that th eir trans' c tions wor e not 'in or affecting 
interstate coi-r-ierce. ' " (anderlinin ',- supplied), (*) 

TJith the influence of pre-oarin.-?; cases for liti.pation, the creation 
and development of 3ta^id.ards of adjustnent, the increasing use of Field 
Adjusters, a.nd the mod.ifications in the conplaints plan of procediU'e, the 
various field offices eriha,rked on a period, of gradual, steady improvement 
of their techniques of handling cases. It has alread.y "been shown that he- 
^;inning about the late spring of 1954 the ^jractice of inspecting the en- 
tire pa^r roll cane into use, 

L'oieover, the use of mass compliance methods in various degrees 
necessitatecL a broadened, scope of investigr tion. In order to cover as 
much ground as possible inspections r-ore limited to samples of the paj'' 
rolls, chosen usuxilly a,t random, 3y checking the hours and wages of onl^^- 
a few employees or for sample weeks, a good indication of the extent of 
compliance could, be obtained. Wliere violations vero d.iscovered in more 
than occasional niirabers, a further -udit was ma.de either by the Jield Ad.- 
juster, the respondent's bookkeeper, or by an independent acco-'untant. 

Praising a moment to analyze whrt has been said., it is seen that the 
investigation of code violations, v/hethcr under a mass compliance or a 
single complaint system, depended on the keeping of adequate, correct 
records liy the respondent. (**) Without 3i.ich records resort had to be ma,de 
to the oral testimony of employees. Of course, in a small percentage of 
cases the T'orkers kept their own hour aiid wa.'^:e records, but these were 
usuallj^ inadequate and were worthless unless coupled with the statements of 
the particular employees. It was, of course, extremely difficult to prove 
the existence of a definite violation without records, where the respondent 
denied the facts. Then too, some inst.ances were foTind where disgruntled 
employees gave false statements and made up bogus records, actuated "oy per- 
sonal grudges against their employers or merely by the desire to obtain 
money. 



(*) Field Letter 155, p. 1 (August S5, 1934) 
(**) This dependence of investigation on the keeping of adequate records 
is d.iscussed in .more detail in Chapter "VII, "The Method of Handling 
Complaints. " 

9861 



=^7 

Th3 falsification, incompleteness, and, in some cases, the total ab- 
sence of records placed a serious obstacle in the ^.7aj' of the field staff 
in handling cases. This difficulty was partially met by the Pield Ad- 
justers' r„tterapts to educate employers to install odequate records, as a 
reg'j.lar pea"t of adjustment work. As a parely voluntary proposition, horr- 
ever, results were far from satisfactory, since the respondents had be- 
fore the:: fresh evidence of the advanta^-es enjoyed by them in not keeping 
good records. Pew codes contained provisions requiring the keeping of 
books, and there wg.s no general Executive or Administrative Order on 
the subject. (*) 

There being no general requirement for tho keeping of records and 
no legal authority ii the Compliance Division to meke inspections, it 
wp.s natural that sone other neans should be invented to bolster the cajn- 
paign of ^cdi cation. One such means was provided for in the Act , in that 
it stated t} it, "Upo i request of the President, the federal Trade Com- 
mission shall raalce such investigations as may be necessary to enable the 
President to carry out the provisions of bliis title." (**) 

An informaJ arrnjigei.ient was male whersby JIEA turned over certain 
funds to the Federal Tr '"e Co;;::Ti3Sion to be tised. for investigating code 
violations, pursua^it to this section. This plan was employed by the Na- 
tional Compliajice Board in a mimber of cases (***) and also by some 
field offices unofficially before iiay 1934. 

Finally, in Field Letter 107 it '/as announced to all the State Offices 
that where a general survey of a situation was called for, or where ac- 
cess to records had been refused, they might request the services of a 
Federal Trade Commission investigator through the Field Branch of the 
Coraplignce Division. (****). This announcement had importance because 
of its effect on the investigational technique of the field. 



(*) The lletional Industrial Recovery Act, Title I, section 3 (a) 

contained the following provision," The President, may, as 

a condition of his artiroval of any such code, impose such con- 
ditions (including requirements for the mal-cing of reports and 
the keeping of accounts) for the protection of consumers, com- 
petitors, employees, and others, and in furtherance of the 
public interest, — as the President in his discretion deems 
necessary to effectuate the policy herein declared." 

(**) ITational Industrial Recovery Act, Title I, section 6 (c). 

(***) . For examples see minutes of the Uational Compliance Board, 35th 
meeting, December 27, 1933, case against Ramsey's "They Cannot 
Hip , New York City; 37th :aeeting, January 2, 1934, cases 
against Truckers Ice and Cold Storage Co., Ltd., Kenner, La. 
and Talf Bros , Inc., New York City; 40th meeting, January 5, 
1934, Case against Edward T. Jones, Kansas City, i:o. 

(****)■ Field Letter 107 (May 8, 193i-) , p. 2. 



0861 



-33- 



;om- 



Thcre vw.z prevalent the mistalcen belief that the Federal Trade Cc 
mission Atooraey Examiners had the pO'ier to compel the production of hooks 
and records. (*) Consecjuently , this working arran^gemcnt with the Federal 
Trade Comjnission for the invest igatioa of MA cases was used effectively 
as a lever to obtain access to records -'here pernission to inspect was 
first refused. (**) 

Still another imiDortant adjunct to the field technique of investi- 
gation was stated in a later instnictioi to the State Offices. In order to 
guard against falsified records and erroneous inforj-iation the Compliance 
Division invoked the aid of a federal statute imposing heavy penalties of 
fine a.nd imprisonment on persons knowinglj'- malr.ing false statements to any 
official of the United States with regpxds to any natter within the juris- 
diction of any department of the Government. (***) ".Thile the applicabili- 
ty of this statute to comialLance activities is orobpOly doubtful legally, 
nevertheless, it served as a useful w3p.pon for the field staff in those 
cases where the respondents atteiroted to falsify or conceal the facts. 
Again the inroortance of tiiis was lot in its strict legal implications, 
but rather in the practical use to which it was put by the field offices. 

It is, of course, apparent that the indiscriminate use of anything 
resembling threats of action Dy the Federal Trade Commission or of prose- 
cution tuider the criminal statute on fa-lsif ication, just mentioned, would 
likely cause resentment and create a harmful effect on the HRA program. 
It should be borne in mind that the practical necessities of the situation 
required that the Compliance Division im-plemcnt its extremely doubtful 
authority to operate on even a modified insnection system, which experience 
disclosed to be the soundest plon of activity. Generally speaking, these 
two methods, above described, of filling the g&v of authority, were used 
comparatively rarely and only with tact and cai-e. 



(*) However, the Federal Trade Coimaission Act provides for the compulsory 
px-oduction of records and information only on the issuance of sub- 
poenas by members of the Commission as to matters before it. See 15 
U. S. C. A. sec. 49, 38 Statutes-At-Large, C. 311, sec. 9. The is- 
suance of such subpoenas, of course, involves the following of a 
certain procedure, and natural persons so required to produce evidence 
are granted amnesty from criminal prosecutions based thereon. Idem. 

(**) This arrangement for the investi5:ation of cases should not be con- 
fused with the provision in the Hatioial Industrial --ecovery Act, 
Title I, section 3 (b) that asiy violation of o. code in a transaction 
in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce should be deemed an 
unfair m.ethod of co?npetition within the meani:g of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act. Under the latter section action by the Federal Tro-de 
Comjnission was under its -oov/er to insue cease and desist orders as 
provided in the organic act. 

(***)?ield Letter 185 (llovember 30, 1934), p. 1, p.nraphrasing Section 
35, U. S. Criminal Code, as amended June 18, 1934, 18 U. S. C. A. 
sec. 80, as amended. 



9861 



-89- 

Tlie s]-ill of the f i .ad offices in raaliinf,- investigations, and their 
scope aiid thoroui^^hness in exr.raininc i -to tne f.-icts improved gradually 
vrith e:qperien"-'.e. But, ps shown in the preceding aection o.i the direction 
and supervision of Field Ac^justers, thi3 im-oroveraent was attained throu.gh 
a "catch-on" -irocess. 

It ■•as not until f^fter the an-ioance:.ient of the creation of the He- 
gional Offices tha.t any worthv/hile attempt -.■as made to instruct the field 
in the \-)roper preparation of cases. In a Field Letter (*) at that tiiae 
instructions vere issued to the State Offices regjording the preparation 
of affidavits. Stress was laid on the fact tha,t the successful litiga- 
tion of a case depended to a large luer.sufe on its initial prei^aration. 
There was pointed out also the practical value of securing affidavits or 
^7itnesKed statements fron employees, in case they later retracted or 
changed their testimony through fear of discharge or for other reasons. 

Thef;e instructions /ere valuff.Dle uec.va^e they included specific 
suggestions as to tlie contents of the affidavits. Briefly, the following 
general rule on the data to oe included ws.s aniounced. 

The sta,ceraent or affic'g.vit fhould oe in sinple terms, prefer ahly 
in the signer's own langu-'ge. It -!ho ild coitain the na:ne, age and ad- 
dress of the '"'orker, the nati.i.re of the ^'orl^ in 'jufficient detail to show 
the employee's code classification, the period of employment, the nature 
of the violation alleged in ver/ soecific tjr 's, and the employer's at- 
titude toward couplience and his 'caowledge of the viola,tion. The fol- 
lowing form was reco:, mended to show the nature of violation: 

"On Aa;"ust _ , 1954, a.t the reauest of ___________ 

(name of er.rplo.yer) "jj -rho-i I c.:j eraT3lo"'er , I comiienced work 
at 8 a.m. o.nd worked until 6 p..u, wit^i one (l) hour for 

lunch. Blaring that week, ending AUi?u3t___ , 1934, I worked 

fifty-t .'0 (52) hours for v;hich I was paid o at the 

rate of $ per day/hour." (**) 

Besides the employee's f;ffidavit, mentioned aoove, it was stated that 
the file should cent.- in at least one genersl sworn statement covering the 
following -oo'ints; the forn of "business organization, find the state of 
incorporation and officers' ncjnes if a corpor. tio..-i, the nature of the em- 
ployer's ousi.iiess in detail, with the size, "uraaiches, and n-araber of em- 
ployees, and the principal mai'kets and sources of raw materials. 

The3e affida.vits were intended for use only in those cases which 
ware likely to "become su"bjects of litigation. It Wo,s pointed out that 
the failure to include this evidence in the file resulted in unnecessary 

("*"j " '?TtaT'LetTer'lcT~ri'~cember 28, 1934). The contents are discussed 

in the paragraphs "'hich follow. 
(**) Field Letter 191, p. 2. 



9861 



-90- 

delays in the final preprration of cases. and the iETtitution of action. 
Of like import v/as the feet thc.t in nanj cases it \7as exceedingly diffi- 
cult to rup-ily this evidence at a later date if not secui-ed during the 
initial investigation. Einlovees 'becaie afraic to ^ive further state- 
ments pn.5. rosTjondents gre-v reluctant to supply further information ^.nd 
to allo'.T additional insi^ectio.'. of their records. 

At this point there should be raentionef -.-^ proposal to i;.iprove 
field investigation teclmi^ue, rtaich '?.'as dev .sloped in the late fall of 1934. 
Through conferences l)et'."Teen representatives oi the litigation and Com- 
pliance Divisions and the Chief Hxsiainer of the Federal Trade Commission 
there '-as evolved a plai for the traini:^g of State Compli-'jice Office 
staffs in ti. : preparation of cases.(*)Under the proposed -orojoct certain 
Attorney Ex,''..:inen of the CoiiTais".ion "'ere to hold siiort training sessions 
in tnc State Offices na led on the specified, list. It 'va^s felt that the 
technioue developed "by the federal Sr: de Con lission through its larger 
experience in investigating coinplai..ts ■■^oulc be of great benefit to the 
Complic-nce Division's field of "ices ii improving the qurlity of their 
i.7ork. That there \;as need for soiae such aysten rras fairly evident. How- 
ever, the practical difficulties of olacing the rjlan in operation 
caused the initiation of the project t'; be postponed several ti.nes, so 
that it was never given a trial. 

The creation of the Segionai Office system had little noticeable 
effect 0.- the develonment of investigational technique. The closer 
supervision of the field offices oxid the additio.^al personaJ contact 
through the visits by Hegio'ial Field Hepresentrtives or their eqtiiva,- 
lents, furnished ajiother medium for instructing ixad. training the State 
Office staffs. Ihe iinproveiient of technique, ho'^'ever,- was mainly brought 
about by daily experience in handling cases and continued to be gradual. 
The restatement of the standards of adjustment in Field Letter 193 is 
somewhat more complete and definite form Oi.ly served to emphasize the 
developments >..'hica had been alrea^dy made. 

However, it i;- not to be tmderstood thrit no further attempts were 
made by the Compliance Division to improve field techniaue. On the con- 
trary, jegir.iing with Field Lt^^tter 191 aiid in the five mo .ths of com- 
pliance a.ctivities that followed, several note-'orthy attempts at improve- 
ment were ma-de. Tne point is that the majority of the field offices had 
attained the improved stage of development throagh experience prior to 
the issuance of -these additional instructions. 

In this connection, the form for .-^jial.ses of cases to be heard by 
the Hegional Counciles (**) furnisned a guide as to tne points to be 
covered by investigation. A fev; weeks later a new complaint analysis 
form v;a<-, sent to the field, giving more detail on evidence of interstate 



(*) ' In LIRA Stiiaios Special Zxiiibits 'Tork liaterials #77 
(**) Field Letter 193 (January 10, 1' ''S) . 



9861 



-91- 
t 

coTuiierco, i.e., c/- to the re^po :dent' s size, riarlcets, sources of ra^? raa- 
,^erials, competitors, character of advertisin;;:,, and method of distribu- 
tion,- ■•nd. direct evidence of interstate sales. (*) 



j A wore aggressive psycho lO'^^r/ of investigation was also i'ldicated "by 

!an instruction sus-^estin,^ that the State Offices hs.ve their Field Adjust- 
ers checl: firus •7ho-:e labor exei^notion petitio:~s 'fere dienied. (**) Ho"- 
ilever, a oackr/ard step ttrs later made restricting; the initiation of uass 
't complic?nce industry surveys. In Liay, 1935, -oossibly heccuse of unfavorable 
publicity received by KRA in heojrings before tne Senate PincJice Coromittee 
on the propo'";ed. extending; lef-ji slat ion, and ^os^iblj'- because of the pending 
decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutiono.lity of the Live £pu.ltry 
Code, the State Offices :7ere instructed lot to conduct any industrial mass 
complipjice surveys .'ithout prior 'specific ap" iroval from 'Jashi i^^^'ton. (***) 

Prob.-bly the ;iiost ii,mortant contribution to tne development of field 
technicjie anc. fieldt office organization during the period under the Re- 
gional Offices wn,s the evolutio.i by the Coordinating Branch of nevr types 
of forms for State Office use. , This came as a result of a survey of non- 
standard forms in use "(^j vsxious State Offices, conducted during the spring 
of 1935. Their value lay in the fact that the;'- tended, toward a inore order- 
ly and uniform preparatio : of cases. These forms, which have been de- 
scribed briefly earlier in tnis section, were eai importaiit part of the me- 
chanics employed by the State Offices in the haadling of cases. (****) 

Diu-ing this ssiie general period of development a memorandum from the 
Compli-aice sna Enforcement Director was sent to the field offices reitera- 
ting the instruct io IS contained in Field letter 191 relative to affido,vits. 
This raemorandura contained only s. general admonition that the files sent to 
the Regional Offices should contain at least o e af f i'- avit from a person 
having a direct k-;ov;ledge of the facts, or from the investigator. Field 
offices were cautioned, to mrj<:e findings of violations only vrhere justified 
by the evidence and to consider the sufficiency of the proof for a council 
hearing in preparing a, case. (*****) 

Reviewing what has been said concerning the evoliition of a teclmioue 
of field investigation, it is striking that the majority of the development 
oaiiie from the experience of the State Office staffs themselves, llo uniform 
standards of investigation were ever created, nor was there any system for 
training end cirecting the field staff ever plf.ced in operation. Some pro- 
gress v/as ;:ade in the diirection of uniform improvement by the non-standard 
form stud;^ bj" the Coordinating Brajich, by the development of standards of 
adjustment 'oy the slow process of growth of the Compliance Division' s 

T*)""' Field L7ue7\?7"(Fe'DriIcr7 4, 1935)" 

(**) Field Letter 205 (iiarch -J3, 1935), p. 3. 

(***) Field Letter 219 (lla^- 32, 1935), p. 1. 

(****) See ::ir^se B'.': supra. 

(*****) Field Letter 209 (Ajril 20, 1934). See also page 8C supra. 



h 

9861 



/ 



-92- 

policie. c:a6. methods of operation, a.id by the continual interchange of 
ideas anrl experiences rjiion=; the field offices themselves. This gradual) 
natural improvGiient of the use of field investigations, ho'-^ever had cer- 
tain practical limitations o i its ^ro"."th as re,;,c,rded the technical legal 
reQuirements as to the character nxid, sufficiency of proof. This last 
fact probably had general rocogniti ^n in the Compliance Division as 'Tell 
as in the Litigation Division, ^;hich iras charged ^lith the actual handling 
of cases presented for legal action.. 

In vie\7 of the fact that fe'J of the j?ield Adjusters iiere lawyers, 
and there vb.s no regular system of training, the existeiice of these limi- 
tations is ncjt surprising. There already -.Tas a knowledge of compliance 
conditions aiid ijEA nolicies end a fa^ailiarity '7ith the practics-l problems 
and the methods of investigating cases, gained from actual experience. 
There was lacking onl}' the knowledge of the technical leval aspects of the 
preparr.tion of cases. 

In a fei/ of the offices, hp'''3ver, depending pn the personnal and on 
local conditions, the staff fiiir^ll;* attained -a completed technique of in- 
vestigation, includi :g a '"orking -knov/ledge of the legal requirements as. 
to the form and sufficiency of evidence.; 

In this connection, some steps were initiated to complement the 
technique of field investigation of the rest of the offices. Under date 
of March jO, 1955 the Acting General Counsel of iClA sent a memorandum on " 
the preparation of cases for litig?.tion to the Regional Directors, mem- 
bers of Regional Compliance Councils, State Directors, llegional Attorneys, 
Regional Litigation Attorneys and Assistant Compliance Attorneys. This 
memorandum called attention to the problens of proper investigation and 
requested the full suggestions and comments of the State Directors and 
their staffs for a solution. There was attached a. copy of suggested in- 
structions and report for investigators, prepared by the Chief Assistant 
U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. This pamphlet, which 
contained laany practical and helpfiil suggestions, was also made the subject 
of comi.ients 'oy the field offices. However, further efforts in this direc- 
tion were halted by tiie ter:iiination of all com-nli^ince activities on May 
27, 1935. 



0861 



-93- 

Section 6 - The techninue of fd.lustment "by conciliatory measures . 

It has teen shown in a -orevious cha-oter that the function of obtaining 
com-oliance had as an essential element the adjustment of coraolp.ints of 
code violations. Adjustment in turn gradually came to mean the edu- 
cation of the res-oondent to his obligations, the bringing about of 
present conformity to the code -orovisions, and, at least in the case of 
wage and hour violations, restitution in full by the employer of the 
amount found to be due the em"nlcyees by the .-adjustment a.^'ency. 

Coincidentally with, the develonment of the standards and -oolicies 
of adjustment to the ooint just described, there came about certain 
changes in the technique ?nd mechanics of adjusting cases. These 
changes were closely correlated with the improvements in investiga- 
tional technique, discussed in the oreceding section. 

Under the original olen contained in the "Re.gulations for the 
Adjustment by District Comoli'-nce Directors of Com-olaints of Code 
Violations," issued October 19j 1933, *he only means for adjustment 
TDrovided were by correspondence and office interviews. ( *)-;Das-to -- 
the large volume of comr)l?ints and the extremely limited isersonnel the 
District Complipnce Offices were constrained to handle cases by the 
unsatisfactory method of correspondence, augmented so far as -oossible 
by office intervie-s with the resoondents. 

'Tith the grr-dual develot^ment of the field organisation under 
the State Office system and the growing exoerience in obtaining cora- 
lolirnce, modifications were made in these methods of o-oeration. "Thile 
corres-oondence and office interviews continued to be used, they assumed 
a different asnoect. In their stead there came into use field inter- 
vievTs and other additions to the adjustment technioue. Inasmuch as 
the evolution of field comoliance -orocedure has been tre"ted in 
e-rlier sections cf this ch"r)ter, the following discussion '"ill not 
reiterate -^ descri-otion of the historical develorimbnt of the various 
' STDBcts of adjustment technique. 

The field loersonnel quickly recognized the dis-^dvntages to 
adjustment work of restricting their activities to correspondence and 
office intervie"'s. Exnerience dictated the necessity of familiarity 
with the --ctu^l business ODerptions of the resiDondent for a protjer 
performance of the comt)lipnce functions. Accordingly, after Field 
Adjusters began to be added to the V'-rious State Office staffs in the 
STDring of 193^^1 ^^^ ^"^^ needed facilities vfcre to some measure -oro- 
vided, the use of field interviews assumed "large importance. 

The value of interviewing the respondent at his place of business 
and attempting to obtadn an a.djustment on the srjot, is stated in the 
following extract from a Field Letter: 

"In the resulting interview hours of work and scale of wages are 
discussed and the situation can be cleared or adjusted frankly 
and without resentment, since the adjuster has the op-DOrtunity to 
seek the em-oloyer's coo-oera.tion before he has built uo an atti- 
tude of resentment and defensiveness." (**) 



(*) See su\-)ra, p. 53, 

(**) Field Letter 125, -o, 12, 

9S6l 



-94- ... 

Field intervieifs received their ^re?.test use in the labor r)hase 
of comilian^e. It hfs rlre.?.dy been shoim that the develoioed -oolicies 
and standar's of adjustment "brou:?:ht about the investi.^r-^tion of the res- 
■Dondent's "oryroll at his place of business. The nrtural procedure v/as 
at leest to initiate the -rrangeraents for sdjustraent at that time. A 
cert--dn iDsycholo.^ic-O. ad.vantage '-'as gained by calling the violations 
to the resioondent' s attention immediately that they were discovered, and 
Xjlacin?: the employer in the nosition of having to sho-.7 his zood faith 
by agreeing to make an adjustment. 

Moreover, the Field Adjuster raakinn the investigation usually 
established an entree in the course of the inspection a.nd w^.s a^ble 
to attain familiarity \7ith all aspects of the c;ise. Certainly, it 
was mere efficient in most cases to allow the Field Adjuster making 
the investigation to a^iDly his loio'^ledge of the facts to a, correction 
of the violations. 

Thus, it is seen that the advantages of field intervie'."7S as a 
means of adjustment are three-fold. This -orocedure was a more simnle 
and more natural one, and therefore easier to follow in every- 
day practice. It made a more efficient use of the limited comTDliance 
facilities, since it pro-jcrly correlated the two interdependent 
features u" invc ti^j- ti'-a and adjustment, and tended to avoid dup- 
lication of effort. 

Secondly, closely related to the fir'.-.t aspect, it enabled the 
adjustment staffs to h.Txdle cases -"ith a fuller and more intimate 
knowledge of the facts and the causes of the violation. From such a ■ 
starting aoint it w"s iDOssible to give the "oroper treatment to 
cases so as to create nerraanent cora-oli-^nce. It mtist be remembered 
that comnli-nce work was not a mere mech'^nical task of discovering 
viola.tions ' nd seeking restitution of back vYa^-es. ihich more important 
was the edu-^ation of em'oloyers to their obligations, convincing them 
of the benefits of compliance, obtaining the installation of adequate 
records and other systems to make the mechanics of code observance com- 
paratively easy, and the attempted alleviation of com-oetitive and 
other outside influence:; which were funda;nenta,l causes of violations. 

Finally, there was a certain -osychological effect attached to 
field interviews which facilitated the adjustment of cases. It is al- 
most a trj.isra that speedy, coordinated handling of a case is con- 
ducive to a satisfactory adjustment. The informal procedure of im- 
mediately caJling the respondent's attention to ^'iDlations and re- 
questing a,n adjustment was consistent with the pronouncements of the 
Compliance Division officials that they desired to cultivate the 
good will of business men. Further, employers felt less resentment 
than they did where they were required to leave their places of 
business and come to the State Office for a, conference. 

Likewise, in the comoara.tively small number of trade practice 
complaints handled by State offices, field intervievfs were proved to 
be of value. This was particularly true in those cases in which 
friction had previously developed between the respondent and the 
Code Authority. A personal call at the responder^t' s place of. business 

9261 * : 



-95- 

wps often found to "be the mediiim of restoring friendl?/ relations and 
of clearing u"0 misunderstandings. 

Hoi7ever, a lar'':er number of trade -Dractice cases r/ps handled ■by- 
inviting resTDondents to a'oiDear in the State Offices for conferences. 
This vips "becauj-e most State Offices found it necessary to assign 
their Field Adjusters to lp"bor viol:-tions. Also, as has heen pointed 
out before, by their very nature trade practice violations were 
more susceritible of treatment by conciliation and mediation under 
the comt)laints plan of procedure. Office interviews on tra,de practice 
complaints vere also used in a. number of cases where the State Trade 
Practice Compliance Officer acted to su-oplement the Code Authority's 
efforts. These usua^lly took the form of conferences bet'Teen the 
renresentative of the State Office, the resioondent, and the com- 
plainant or the Code Authority's members, vrhich were almost solely 
for TDur'30ses of composing the differences of the "oarties. Little 
fact finding was necessa^ry. 

In labor complaints office conferences had a slightly broader 
asTject, although their use was more restricted. Office interviews 
as part of the adjustment machinery for desling '-ith l?bor com- 
plaints took two forms. In a minor -oercentage of cases the finaJ. 
arrangements for adjustment could not be com-oleted in the field. It 
becpjne necessary then to invite the respondent to the State Office to 
discuss the settlement of the case. This might be due to the fact 
that certain important ouestions of -oolicy were involved in the case 
vfhich mpde it advisable for the adjustment to be personally super- 
vised by the Labor Com-oliance Officer or a member of the adminis- 
trative sta,ff . Also, becaxLse of peculiar circamstaaices in a case or 
on account of the ■oerson'^lity of the respondent, it w=i.s sometimes ad- 
vantageous to seek an adjustment through an office interview rather 
tha.n in the field. 

In the latter connection there should be noted another cause 
OTDereting for the employment of office interviews in the adjustment 
of cases. The intern-'^l organization scheme used in some of the 
offices was so devised that the f-unctions of investigation and ad- 
justment were largely divided, so tliat the latter V7as chiefly the 
province of the office staff, rather than the field staff. (*) The 
latter vras notably true in mass compliance surveys, discussed in a 
later cha^Dter, although it was used by a few larger offices as a 
regular system of o;oeration. 

The second form of office interviews wa.s the joint conference be- 
tween resr)ondent and com-olainant. This closely combined fact finding 
and adjustment. This tyue of interview, '-'hich vras more in the nature 
of a.n informal arbitration hearing, v;as used mainly where no adequate 
records existed or where for other reasons the facts were obscure. Its 
use extended chiefly to the codes covering industries characterized 
by small' establishments, such as Retail Food and Grocery, Restaurant, 
and the like. The procedure at such conferences wa.s to draw out the 
facts, as far as possible, by questioning both -oarties, and then to 
attem-ot to arrive a.t a mutually satisfactory adjustment. Such procedure, 

(*) See discussion on the finally develoned internal organization of 

field offices, Chanoter IV, pp. •iS-I-?. 
9261 



-96- 

it is true, left considcrc-'ble room for de-iartures from rdjustment 
str,ndr,rds. Ho'-revor, it is to be renemlDtired tlic.t this tyoe of joint 
hec.ring r-s used c.lmost rolel.7 in tho more or loss small, unimTOortant 
intrr.state and senrice trade c se^;. In trie absence of a uniform re- 
quirement for the keening of records and -DOVTer to com-oel the pro- 
duction of evidence, the orr.ctice -,t~s reg-rded as a, makeshift to take 
care of an immediate situation, in' the srme generrl category as the 
sus\Tending of final .-,aministr:,tive -.ction on certrin codes deemed not 
susceptible of successful enforcement. 

As a su'oplement to the methods of .■ djustraent just described, the 
State Offices continued to make use of corresoondcnce. It has been 
shown that originallv -Dractically all compliance efforts vere 
carried on by this means. Its disa.dvant£,ge as a primary method of 
operation are a,p-oarent . It undoubtedly bred delay and deceit on the 
part of industry members, -^nd ;:orved to create the imisression of in- 
efficiency rnd ineffectiveness in the com"oliance Machinery which be- 
came a greet handicpn to the field offices in their relations with 
industry, labor and the -oublic. 

As quickly as possible, therefore, the State Offices ceased to 
use this tyoe of procedure, exce-ot for the initial notice to the 
resTDondent rnd for such corresuondence r,s ••as necessary incidental to 
the investigation and adjustment efforts in the field. Moreover, 
following the suggestion to that effect in' Field Letter 125, even the 
initial notice to respondents was Ir-rgoly eliminated, (l2l) 

However, in the last few months of comioliance history, corresT)ond- 
ence came again to be used for the handling of the servibe trades and 
some intrastate codes. It was felt that the time and energy of the 
Field Adjusters ought to be conserved for the larger, more ira^oortant 
codes covering industries which were considered to be engaged in or 
affecting interstate commerce. This o-lso was regarded as a temi^orary 
arrangement -oending the determination by the officials in 'Jashington 
a.s to the disposition of the codes in question. 

In the course of the months of ex'oerience in preparing unadjusted 
complaints for further administrative and legal 'action, the State 
Offices evolved another •oart of the rdjustmen'b technique which ma-y be 
called the formal hearing. ■ This may be distinguished from the office 
interview and the St.'^te Adjustment Board hearing in that it was ' 
essentially a last o-oportunity to a-^iDear before a 'member of the State 
Office staff and make an adjustment of the case, 

When investigated com^olaints h^d reoched tho stage where it was 
felt that little more of an administrative character could be done by 
the State Office, it was determined vhether the further action should 
be suspended, as in a limited class of codes, or tho case should be 
transmitted to a. higher agency with tho recommendation that adminis- 
trative a.nd legal sanctions be invoked, 

(121) Supra, p. 65. 
9S6l 



-97- 

Pr.rtly on the suggestion of the Litigation Division's field men 
-nd to some measure on their own initiative, a number of the State 
Offices Cc'jne to use the formal hearing as a re^-ular steo in the handling 
of unadjusted cases. A notice ras sent to the resoondent, usually by 
telegraph or registered mail, st'^ting that an investigation ha.d dis- 
closed the viola.tion of certain named code -orovisions which he had 
failed or refused to adjust, and informing him of a last OToportunity 
to appear a.nd correct the violations or show cause why further 
action should not he taken. The notice sxiecified the time and place 
of the hearing and the Tjerson before vhom the respondent was to anpear. 

At the hearing the member of the State Office staff, usually 
the at)-Dropriate com^^liance officer or his assistajit or the Legal 
Adviser, informed the res-oondent of the general nature of the charges, 
a.nd read and explained the -oertinent code provisions. A request for 
adjustment was then made with the explanation tlia.t in the event of re- 
fusal the case would be recommended for action by the United States 
Attorney, i/iinutes of the hearing were t-lcen and a trajiscript included 
in the file. 

These formal office hearings served two -ourooses. A certain -oor- 
centage of res"oondents were influenced to adjust their orjerations ac- 
cording to the prescribed standards. On the> other hand, the notice 
took the -olace of the required notice of violation -orovided by 
Bulletin No. 7. The hearing before a higher ranlcing member of the 
staff, after contact had been made by the Field Adjuster, served to 
replace the "orocedure nrescribed in Bulletin No. 7 ^°^ ^^ resioondont 
to a.npeal the decision of the compliance officer to the State Director, 
and from the latter to the State Adjustment Bo?;,rd. (*) In the latter 
connection, the Litigation Division o.-oparently felt that the granting 
of a hearing with notice to the resriondents "ould tend to eliminate 
some objections of the courts with reference to due -orocess of law. 

One other nhase of the adjustment wrocedui-e also provided an im- 
partia,l hearing and a. means of a.'opea.l for complainants and respondents. 
Bulletin Uo. 7 lorovided for the creation of a State Adjustment Board, 
to serve in an advisory carjacity to the State Director, and to hoar 
av-Q-oeals by res-oondents and comr)lainant:- frofr decisions of the State 
Office. (**) 

This came to be an irn'oortant -oart of adjustment procedure, since 
in TDra.ctice the Board's use was extended buyond the rather narrow 
limits probably intended by Bulletin IJo. 7» 



.(*) Bulletin I'lo. 7, o. 15. However, the replacement was not entire, 
esnecially as to State Adjustment Board hearings, as will be 
noted belo\7. 

(**) Bulletin No. 7, pp. I5, 16. The origin, development, and use of 

State Adjustment Boards is the subject of a subsequent section and 
will not be discussed here. 



3S6l 



-. . -98- 

Being r, vol'ont.'^ry, iiiroartial afi'ency established a-orrt from the 
Compliance Division, its decisions carried nn inherent lorestige. The 
keynote of the Bo^rd ""s imi3,-rrtiality. 

The majority of the cnses referred to the State Adjustment 
Boards (rnd rlso the Locrl Adjustment Boards) uere ones involving 
dis-QUted questions of fact. It uas each Board's function to de- 
termine the facts in the particular c-"3e hefore it and then to reach 
a decision as to the adjustment required, in the event violations 
.'7ere found. 

Because res'oondents f^unerally reg-rdcd the hearing hefore the 
Board as a. semi- judicial r^roceeding, it follorred as e. natural con- 
sequence that the decision of the im-oartirJ. agency carried much 
^,7eight in influencin.5 the adjuctment of cases, i.Joreover, this value 
as a part of the .-"djustment technique extended even further. Llany 
respondents ".ere sufficiently a..;ed hy the isroceedings before vhat 
nas considered a higher tribunal that they tDreferred to adjust- 
their cases rather thpn allo'.; them to be referred to the State Adjust- 
ment Boards for herrings. 

There ha,s buen stated a .f'.escri-:)tion of the procedure and 
general methods, followed in adjusting causes. In a'Oplying these 
methods successfully the use of practical psycholofjy, tact, and other 
intangible rsersonal qualities rvas of i^aramount im-oortance. 'iuore often 
than not the chrrrcter and qua.litj'- of the field Tersonnel i^'a.s the de- 
termining factor in successful comrjli-^nce -'orl:. It ""p.s necessary 
tliat the regular means of -adjustment not only be used skillfully, so 
a.s to attain the best .results, but that they bo augmented by \^hatever 
devices the ingenuity of the State office staffs could conjure. 

The com"olic.ated nature of the uroblem of re.gulat'-ng the every- 
day economic relations of so TQa,ny ^Deoole naturally necessitated the 
invention of nays of making the procedure "orovided adaptable and 
effective under locrl conditions. These su^ioleraentaiy adjustment de- 
vices ""ere so many and va.ried that a discussion of thorn ^.7ill not be 
attempted a.t this .-loint. The more im^Dortant ones v;ill be mentioned 
in a subsequent cha'oter on the problems arising out of the settlement 
of com-olaints. 

'Without entering into an analysis of complaint st-itistics it ma.y 
be stated at this time that 50,2^0 crses of labor violations iiere ad- 
justed by the state offices against 3,673 vrhich i-fere referred to 
higher authority because the state offices v/ere unable to adjust them. 
About half of the latter n\imber vere cventuallj'- adjusted by the Com- 
pliance Division in V/ashington or ''oy Hegional offices. There i^ere 
19*674 trade -oractice violations adjusted by the State offices and 
2,550 referred to higher authority. 

Section 7 - Hon-disclcsure of the source of complaints . The instinictions 
to field offices, it has been sho-wTi, ^ere clear that the source of com- 
plaints v,'?s to be kept strictly conf identirl xuiless the complainant 
gave express -ncrraission for the use of his name. (124) 



(134) Supra, pp. 5C^-59.; Office lasnual III - U12I.OII 
9g6i 



-99- 

The immedipte re^.son for this nile ves, of course, that the disclosure 
of the complainant's identity often lead to meo.sures of retaliation 
"by the res-oondent, os-oecially in the crse of lahor complaints. (*) 

The imrortrJice of this fact to the com'olirnce "orogram lay in the 
"basis of 'oroceedings, -the filin.-; of com-:l- int s. Since the initial 
steTD in the iDroccdure '-ras the entering of a complaint, it -nas essential 
to promote the rdllingness of em-oloyeos, corn'oetitors --nd others to 
reoort violations. 

Hovjever, as long ps the field offices '^ore undermanned, and 
as long as they vere forced to follow the procedure of notifying the 
res-oondent of the contents of the complaint and of e.cce-otxng his 
explanation, no satisfactory ijrogress could "be made. Either further 
efforts on the c se would h?ve to he dropped, or the comr)lainant 
would "be called uoon to suooort his allegations. In the latter case, 
of course, and also even sometimes where the com-^laint was closed, 
the resnondent could readily ascert'in the source of the reoort. 

This consequence of the comt>laints procedure resulted either in 
making the compliance officials a.^oear ridiculous or in deterring 
other em-oloyees from complaining, usually "both. The ramifications • 
of this problem were soon seen hy field officials rnd remedial stens 
were taken wherever r)Ossi"ble. 

This is reflected in the treatment of anonjrmous complaints. 
The original rule that comxilaints of PRA violation before the Lo- 
cal Comnlia.nce Boards had to be signed, was changed on October 19, 
1933 "to make action on anonymous comolpints discretionary with the 
District Com-oliance Directors. (**) The latter was reiterated in 
Bulletin Wo. 7. (***) But two days after the issuance of Bulletin 
No. 7, however, it ^b.s thought necessary to cl-arify the rule and by 
inference to urge the^ handling of anonymous complaints excerit where 
palpably false or lonfpunded. (****) 

With the addition cf Field Adjusters to the State Office staffs, 
and the develp-oment of their use, it has been shovm that modifications 
were made in the procedure of handling cases. (*****) Thus, investi- 
gation came to include ins-oection of . the entire payroll, and the use 
of office comT)laints and mass comoliance methods became increasingly 
po-Dular. By changing to these methods of aioproach in the handling of 
violations, the source of information automatically tended to become 
impersonal. Tljis was found to be the most successful way of dealing 
with the -oroblem, although it in turn was handicaoped by the absence 
of adequate records in numbers of cases and by the lack of legal ■ 
authority to make such inspections. 



(*) This entire subject of protection of complainants' identities 

was an outstanding -oroblem of the Com-Dliance Division and is so 
discussed in Chapter VII, infra. 

(**) Su-ora, pp. 51, 53 

(***) Bulletin No. 7, p. 11 

(****) Field Letter Ug, -0. 1. 'See also Surira, p.' 5o . 



(*****) Su-ora, v^' S%5C , 59-7: 



-1U'> 

This unofficip.l method of meetin./ the issue --"s suTolemented 
on Mqy. 15, 193U by tlie issur.nce of Sxucutive Order 67II, \Thich r)ro- 
hibited undt^r "oenaltios of fine and imorisoiiiiient the dismissal or 
demotion of emnloyees for filing com-jlpint -, or giving evidence in 
connection rdth code violrtions. Since -'e are -orimarily concerned 
here vith the effect of the lorotection of comolainants' identities 
on the procedure follorud in the field in adjuf.ting cases, ho'yever, 
a discussion of the a;'i"olication of this order -ill he left until 
a later chaoter. 

As an outgrowth of the develoi-iment of com-ili?nce procedure, 
it became the -orpctice to ';'ithhold the nrrae of the comolainant at 
all costs. Thus, there "rs seen the situation, incon^Tuous Fith 
our basic legal conce-ntions, that respondents '.;ere told thp.t they 
had been found to be in violation of their respective codes but 7fere 
not - informed as to e;:a,ctly Y/hr.t oerticulrars. '.Tith the st'^tements 
of eraTolqyees al'^pys a lorime source of infornation imder the cora- 
"olaints ^Dla-n of -orocedure and also under the mass com^oliance 
system ^-^here records vfere lacking, it 's Tor^ctically ira-oossible 
to -orotect the source of comTil- int njid. at the same time to name 
the s"oecific em^^^loyees rith regprd to -Thorn the violations had been 
committed. 

This iDresu-'i-oosed an e.lmost im-olicit confidence in the im-oar- 
tiality of the i'lRA. a feeling -'hich -'-s not al-'pys rjresent. On 
the other hrnd, many resoonO.ents resented -^hst they considered to 
be star chamber oroceedings, feeling that had the right to face 
their accusers, or a.t least be infor-aed ps to the exact particulars 
of the violations chnrged. It is recognized that this attitude by 
res-oondents \7as aartially fallacious, since exce'ot in the case of 
large em-oloyers, they vere ordinarily in a iDOsition to kno:-. hov? 
their businesses i--cre conducted, Nevertheless, that feeling -'as to 
some measure the genesis of the reaction against hUA. ^''hich so mani- 
fested itself during the 1-ct fe'7 months under, the codes. 

Therefore, the reouisite confidence "Yith 'vhich the source of 
com-olaints vrs treated -.'as imDort~nt for f-^o ren,sons. There v/as, 
in the first -oiace, a troublesome administrative problem created, 
which had to be met. In the second olace, the observrnce of this 
cardinal rule of secrecy ^ -as a la^ge motivating influence in the de- 
velopment of the methods and teclinioue of investigating and ad.- 
justing violations. In the latter respect, the resulting encroach- 
ment on fundrmentwl legal orincioles h;:s alreac'y been mentioned. 

However, v/hile the practice of refusing to disclose the 
source of information lead to resent lent on the part of res-oondents 
and v/as regarded in some ouarters as a dangerous invasion of consti- 
tutional rights, some relief from this ooinion '.vas founcl in the 
provision for hearings before impartial boards. 

These agencies '-'hich were kno^n as State and Local Adjustment 
Boards, "'ere designed nrimarily to hear a.-'o-'Deals from the decisions of 
the various St-^te Directors and their staffs. (*) Through their in- 
tervention it v/as r)Ossible in a large ^:)ro^ortion f puch cases both 

(*) A discussion of origin, 'Xiraose - nd use of these boards is con- 
qgg, ta.ined in the next section. 



„ir,i_ 

to protect the complainant's identity- and at the srnie time retrin the 
res^jondont' s .^^ood v.ill and confidencu. 

It should he made cleai-, hovuver, that the attitude of res- 
pondents described in the foregoing tirragraohs '::m b" no means univer- 
sal. There rere a fev' of the em-olojers '"ho -.-ere able to understand and 
agree vith the need for keeping the source of information confidential. 
They recognised the inherent limitations of the comolaints plan of 
procedure pnd rerlized that its success deoended to a large degree 
on their cooiDeration. They also took cognizsjice of the fairness of 
the rule of confidence, since ps t corollary to it, the field offices 
vrere instructed not to give any -oublicity to the f-ct that a com- 
plaint had been filed against a -oarticular res'iondent. (*) The la.tter 
instruction, hov/ever, being not so ecsentirl to the conduct of com- 
pliajice activities, never received the strict replication im-oosed on 
the Tjrotection of the source of comolrints. 



(*) Bulletin T.o. 7, t,. 7 



9Sbl 



^1 pn_ 

Section & - Hearings by Loca-1 and State M .lus tment Boards . The idea of 
a pyste.:i of voluntary, inrpa,itiel boards to assist in the handling of 
coimlc'iiits of violations vvt's not new with the provision for State Ad- 
justineiit Boards oy Bullptin i'o. ?.(*) As early as September 11, 1933 
there had been announced the establishment of a system of Loca,l Com- 
jliaaice .joards to handle comTlaints' and petitions for exemption u..der 
the FEA. These earlier boards were so constituted that, t;enerally soeek- 
in,. , they were supposed to reconcile the conflictin;-, interests of the' 
Curoloyer, the worker and the consumer. 

i.ior cover, some such type of ag'cncy was airoarently contemplated when 
fl:e :>tional Industrial Recovery Act was nassed, for' Title I, s^-ction 
?,(a) arthorized the President "to establish such a.j^encics, to accc-^t end 
utilise such voluntary and uncompensated services" as he rai^.ht deem ne- 
cessPory. 

During the ext)erimenta,l sta^^e of the field offices from October, 
1935, to January, 1924, it became a-miarcnt that a. number of improvements 
in the compliance field orge,nization were needed. Included among chese 
were the needs for a better defined procedure and for a more adetjuate 
:Tersonnel. To fill martially both these requirements there was provided 
a system of impartial, voluntary agencies to sup-nlement the activities 
of the regular field organization. 

In a letter, dated January 30, 19?4, t6 thte new State Directors 
anc. in Bulletin '."o. 7 (issued two days later), it was announced that a. 
State Adjustment Board v/ould be established in each staitc as part of the 
permanent compliance system. (** ) Tlie purpose of these boards was to 
create an orderly proceaure for the hearin._.: of apoeals by those parties 
dissatisfied ?/ith the decisions of the Sta.te Directors or their stanfs. 
T?aey v;ere also to hear cases referred by the State Directors and were 
to serve pu/ely in en advisory capacity to the latter. (***) 

Such was the apparently limited scope of the Adjustment Boards. 
iTith exnericnce in the use of this type of agency, however, their utility 
was found to extend much further a.nd they came to be an important adjunct 
of the ._,ovnrnmental code compliance system. 

The first State Adjustment Boards were organized and be^an to func- 
tion in February, 1934. Their number and location was made to depend 
■a--)0n bhe volume of cases submitted and on local needs. (****) 

Inasmuch as the Boards were to serve a^s a forum for those dissatis- 
fied with the State Offices' decisions, it v/as irai-)erative that they be 
truly iimartial. Therefore, they were composed of equal representation 
from ennloyers and workers, with an im.-iartial chairman to represent the 



(*) Bulletin Fo. 7, pn. 15-16. 

(**) In T'RA Studies Special Exhibits Work iiaterials -^ol 

{*'■'*) Bulletin No. 7, '.^t. 15-16. 

(=i<=^**) Ibid., p. 15. 



9061 



-103- 

■molic, "^reec. "v^i-?. D"" t.ie other ■■■iei::j.TS pno. ?'^"~iointoo. o'' the Pre':ident. 
(*) l'\ this connecti^-i, tlic care ••it'i -rhich t'lo various State Cf'^ices 
su^jervised the selecti-n of these Acljustnent Boards -'r-.s pn i/msortant 
factor in r.eter: iini:''. .; tl'.Gir v.sef^ilness as an i'voartirl agency, since ob- 
vioiisl;" ti:r rienhers hcA, 'c^ he of a, frir].-'- hi';;'i t;roe, cplcalatecl to com- 
nano. thr res'tect a;n(' cnf ic.en.ce ^f oot]~- co' ■"il-i-ir-Ttf: pn^. res'ionc ents. 

The ;ienhers of hoth State rz'. "oc-l Ac"..jv.st'!ent ?joar'".s, descrilied 
helo'-', server '-it lon.t co:;-oe-\satio-i. ""he staff of the Strte AcTjustnent 
"oarc. consisted, of "^n "^rcecitive Secretrr"", -''lo '"as t ^e St-^te Office f;::- 
eciitive Assistant, th't: Le"'"l adviser, 'n'" sm.ch r;e"i'bi''i''s ^'£ the clerical 
force as '"'cre neeced. 

7ith the termination of Local C'^'Toli"nce fioarc''^. ^-iz. the a^^TOOintnent 
of Resident ?i:ld Adjusters in Juuf , I?".-'':, there •.'ere; a.lso or'^'^nized lo- 
c?l boards in, tao -ore i iiortait co "i'- ities of eac'.i sta,te "here the]' 
coi-ild oe efficiently ^nd ec<i:nonicall;" assisted by th.e local "''"iA re"ore- 
sentative. (** ) Tic se Loc"l Adyast :ent boards, "ere selected r::\d. consti- 
tuted i-^. 0. man:ier si -ilar tn the 3'^ate AdjvLstnent ^"'oards, e:-ce"ot the 
chairr.ien --'ere ay-Jointcd h" the St'te "directors. I-. ufiry insta:^ces the 
jie'ahershiy '•??. dra"'"n fron the old local Co'ioli-'^nce "^oards, lyut in siich 
c^,se, onl;" after the laoor end indn.str"^ .groups had '^.ivcn t icir ondorse- 
:ients. These Local BoarO.s had the srv.e functions, out '-'ere generally 
subordinate to the State boards. 

The na.jorit"' of the cases referred to the Adjust- -cnt '-Dnards con- 
cerned violations of '-p.yes and ho^'irs ~nd ii ver" fe-' instances '■'as it 
felt nucesspjry to siib.iit tra.de i^ra.ctJ.ce conl^ints. Therefore, the 
larger percentariie of ca.s.^s nrcse:ited nay be divided into the fo] lo"i"^2," 
t'yDes: 



(1 



;hr co-"il'~i-:La-it or rc3")0ndent ':'p,s c^.issatisf ied -'ith 



the fiic"i:^;5s of the Strte Of'ice. 

(3) "'''.ere t:io fiel" office felt it '■'••''s advisable to snbiait a 
case to t'le yoa,rd for the "iTO-roose of soivin'j a c'.ifficult fact'ia.l siti^.a.- 
tion or t" deter, dne a iiethod of a.rbitration. (*** ) 

fo) "Theie the Conpliance Officer or State Director felt that 
the ps;"c!iolo';ica,l effect of a hea.rin.'.,' b^-'fore an iToa.rtia.1 bod" '••ould 
fa cilita.te ?.d just' lent . 



(4) 



here it 



.'elt the a- .■■'.;;-.t 



restitvtim dtie miyht be 



reduced because of -oeculiar c"':'Mti'^r. or beca-\is2 of th.e fina'icial i'^.- 
abi3.ity of the i'es'jonde"'.t to v:^' ba.c'': ■''•cs i i full. 

(o) "^hsrc it '-'as felt 'hat a he",rin : brfore tjie ?oa.rd '"ould 
stren.^th.en tie ca.se for its ?ater .-ef . rsn.ce to the ayvro'oria.te Cor-oliance 
Council or U\itcd States Att ;r"'.cy. 



(*) loid., p. IG; sei- -Tso note (**y ^"" 

(**) In '"A Stu'"ies S'DGcial ""rihljits ""orh Katoii-.ls ^7. 
(***) '^ote t.vt t.iese t"0 cl"ss(.s j; .• rised the ori'.iia.l sc^-oe of the 
■"cards' fu-'.ction.s as la.id do- ->. i"'. ; v"'."''.f ti" "o. 7. 



^861 



-104-. 

It i3 s-en xlv.t tlie Irtte"' t'lre^ clrxr zt:"^. -'r-- l-^ + er de^'el'^-orn'^nts 
i"i tlie t^-oec- of nrsrs n-ifji.^or.-o.d o^' tiic Scares. Tlie catc.'ory 'ientio:ied 
i:i 'OP raiv;rp.''ii"i (4), c^novo-'i.se c^.r^es, f'^:-. ■..ie',". :", D.aiTe nr'"oorti n of the 
-'or':, follci"-; the is:.:i'^-\co o Fiolf Lettev 1?5 -^n Ji^ne 13, 1""4. In 
the latter insti-TiCtl" tc i 1: •-•■? Mi-ovi'-./d '•.i-r: ii ?1"'.', cases --Mcre lers 
than fiill restitutio-:, ''-e STvh:: t .o ,""" juft.iiFnb hac', t'^ he .a-v.Ti-nved "b-^- 
the State Adjri.st-'.c it l-rrC . (* ) 

The r"rai"ii". 1.: t''\') r.di'Ht r.-'i^".]. t 'o^s of cf.se; "''ore •'^Igo i"^.clitc.ed i:i 
7ic''d Lcttca- 12.5 tz c>-f inin. " tno j-.-'.ri^di :;ti-i-T if tur jnar'".s. It "?s 
there 3t.?ted th'^t all ca.ses ■■hic'^ c-ir"/' i'--t he .a'" jiist cd i---'. accordar.ce 
•■•ith t'le staif-prds set fort'i thcrii (**) ■'^^> '"■el!', as casefj in -^hich there 
■'PS "ide c^.-.^fict ia stateneats of face's ..'hor Id he re'^erred to the Stp.te 
Ac' justneat hoara. (*** ) 

Thus, it is se/n tl..at th' .'.".g of f..-^ j!d]u?treat }3o?.rds as coateii- 
•ilated o"y rielc" Letber ? --h j cove;,-ec ." n~-Ch l.ar'jer a^'irfoer of c-ses than 
■'"s described h;' the o:ri ';ii~.l ir~vi'^'i!'''i of ^''-'lletia '-'^■. 7. h" t.he tiiie 
the fielc' offices had e-.tered o^ t loir t.iird sta^.e of dnvelorA-eat, ia 
Jivie, l'"34, it hp.d heoa discovc'a::!:- th-^.t t':.e "tate .Idjust leat "'or^rd hear- 
ings ior;ie'' an i:"oorta-it aart o'^ tho -acjairt .^-'.t technio-'ne. 

There '~ere threr j'vic.f v^l-aes to th':- s"^te-!. A nur.'ber cf troiial'-— 
3o;'!e c-ases in '"hich the facts "jre so -"^hscxire a.s to oe ali:iost ii.iooGsiole 
of definite oroof -'ere cnicaoly disnos'.c .^f '.hrou-fih heari-i..'-; and arhitra- 
tioi hy thr- I'l'^ards. Thore v-^s thus a ohysical relief of the erctrene 
"oressiirc of '-or: on tho field offices. In tae second ■'■^lace, tne ps3'"cho- 
lo.'vical effect of .a hearinr^ hefore p:'-i i:.roartirl r^'ency, ^-hosc nenbors 
■"'ere rr^.ftec froi.\ -priviite life, •— s an. i:"7ortc,nt f'^.ctor in I:)rin-;,ln; r.hor.t 
tae adjustnent of difficj.lt cses. This --as a -ontent inflr.enc?. on t/he 
tjrinin^'s of voluiitrx"^ coi .pliance, "oartic^'larly ii the case of sna.ller op- 
erators, rii^ll-', a cert-^.in ord.,rli:".ess ^ts inj'^cted into conaliance 
^Droct;dure, and the '".cvi'jc rn.d r^co v '-i.^ations of 'oersons not of.^iciall;.'' 
T-onnectec' 'ith ''PA lor so .'"■:enphle to ■.:ov-em'ientr.l re.'";alations served a,s 
a useful, steac.yini influence on tno ,'"ve''.o"Tient of co '.-olirnce oolicios 
and nractices. 

The original T)-"ovisio?-ir. cancer .in'; the 'j.se of St'-te Adj^-.stnent 
Boards "ere silent ■.'^s to the -orocefii.re to he follo'"'in'^ in .''ie.arin.<5S Pn'^i 
as to the ''.pnner ii -nic".i cases '-'ere to he orrscnted. '■o'^'ever, emeri- 
ence i'l. holci'iy these n^-arin ";'- s'-.o-'od the ■.lecessif"' of for''^""-lpting so'j.ie 
sta'idp.rds of -oracticc. Thcreforo, 1'. ore or thpt cases :-i',ht he disposed 
of lost ercoeditiousl';' t]ie follo'-'in"^ ov'-tline "'-os l?J.d ^^cn h;,'- Pield Let- 
ter 135, ?nd 7en"rpl].7 fol'o-'ce hy the State Of dices. (**** ) 



(■•0 7ield Letter 17 '5, n. 5; Suu'ol one .t a: y ' eMorp::du ','"-■ . 1 (tol^lle- 

tin ''0. 7) a, 4. T.his -oo-'er, ho'-ever, ''-as ren.o'^ed hy yield I:etter 
l'"4. See discv.snion of orocoda'.re for co-.noro'nise cases i"n ne::t 
sectic'i. 

(**) See nrara, m. ;^3-26 

(***) j^ielc Letter 125, a. 34. 

(****) ?ield Letter 1?5, 'ti. :A-Z'^. 



c 



361 



-105- 

Arrangements were made for cases to "be heard according to a fixed 
schedule. Both respondents and coinplairia,nts were invited to be present 
and to bring their witnesses, errce^jt that vmere deemed expedient, the 
parties were heard on different days. There was no instruction as to 
the rule to be followed in selecting case? for presentation to the Board, 
the matter being left to the determination of the particular office. 

A brief outline of gech case v&s usually -^iven each member prior to 
the hearing. Some offices foiond it advantageous to require the Field 
Adjuster submitting the case to prepare a comprehensive report and an- 
alysis of the file, both better to acquaint the Bo^.rd with a,ll facts in 
the case and to minimize any tendency on the part of the staff to abuse 
the Board's services. This last ".vas a later development and the practice 
of requiring such comprehensive preparation of the file v/as followed in 
only a few of the offices. In addition to the factual outline mentioned 
above, the Field Adjuster or Labor Complipnce Officer often appeared be- 
fore the Board to give additional relevant information. 

Having become acquainted with the general facts and the issues in- 
volved, in a case, the parties and their witnesses were heard. Here there 
was little uniformity. Some Boards heard each party and each witness 
separately, some allowed the vifitness to testify in each other's presence, 
but the majoritj'- followed both courses, depending on the conditions aris- 
ing in particular cases. Witnesses ordinarily did not testify under 
oath. No formal rules of evidence were followed, although the question- 
ing was limited to pertinent issues and was usually conducted by a mem- 
ber of the Board. 

Here it is important to note that each Board established its own 
rules of procedure, none of which was inflexible, for the conduct of 
hearings. Meetings were more in the natxare of conferences for arriving 
at the facts on which to base an adjustment, rather than in the character 
of trials. These hearings were usually private, although Code Authority 
representatives were allov^ed to be present to offer advice. However, it 
was T/ithin the discretion of the Board to make any hearing open to the 
pablic. (*) But few public hearings veve held, however, and where used 
v/ith care and discretion they prere found to be of value in effecting ad- 
justments. Their chief effectiveness lay in the fear of publicity on 
the part of respondents. 

Decisions were reached by the Boards usually in executive session 
immediately follov^ing the hearing. 7/liile technicr.lly the decision had 
the force only of an advisory opinion to the State Director, as a prac- 
tical matter these recommendations were followed almost a matter of 
course except in a very small percentage of cases. Minutes of each 
meeting were kept by the Executive Secretary, although an exact tran- 
script of the testimony was taicen in only a very small number of cases. 

Reports submitted by fifty-one of the fifty-four State Offices fol- 
lowing the termination of compliance activities show a consensus in fa^ 
vor of the Boards' usefulness as part of the .adjustment machinery, al- 

T*~) Field Letter 125, p. 34; Field Letter 160 (September IE, 1934), 
p. 4. 

9851 



thougli theiJ value necoas-rily varidd according to the individual experi- 
ence of eacli office. The caliher of personnel nns generally found to he 
the determining factor and the greater care nith uhich the raemher'shio 
wa.s chosen perhaos accoimts for the larger success of Adjustment Boards 
over Local Complipnco Boards. 

On the "basis of these re-oorts from the State Offices it is estimated 
that 3,000 cases ^-rere referred to State and Local Adjustment Boards 
throughout the country. (*) The numher considered varied greatly from 
state to state, viith the largest number , U51, heing heard hy the Phila- 
delphia, Pennsylvpnia State Adjustment Board, rhich used three -oane].s of 
members. 

The coordination of the Boards v;ith the com^^li-ance lorogram is v/ell 
illustrated by the statistics obtained from a representative sam-^sle of 
eighteen offices. (**) Those figures shovr the disposition of cases hand- 
led by both State and Local Aijiistmcnt Boards in the states selected. 
Practically all decisions 'jerc unpnimous and but one sjid one-half per- 
cent rrere overruled by State Directors. This is highly indicative of 
the close cooperation existing bet'-recn the State Offices and the Boards, 

An analysis of the disposition f the 1,^13 cases handled 'by these 
eighteen sets of Adjustment Boards, slightly less than half the total 
number considered, shows that violations '.,'ere found to exist in eighty 
percent of the cases. On the other hand fifteen and one-half percent 
were rejected eith:,r for lack of evidence, on a, positive finding of no 
violation, or because the Board felt it had no jurisdiction. But four 
and one-half percent of the cases referred vere oending on i.Iay 27, 1935 
with no action liaving been taken and the question of complia,nce undecided. 
The smallness of the latter number is accounted for by the fact that the 
activity of the Boards decreased considerably in the sToring of 1335j af- 
ter the power to approve compromises had been removed by Field Letter 
19^, and with the growth of the i^ractice of drooping certain types of 
cases by the field offices. This will be discussed further in the next 
section. 

The usefulness of Adjustment Boa.rds as opa-t of the adjustment tech- 
nique is manifested by the large number of violations which wore either 
adjusted in full or were settled on a comiTromise arrangement. Of the 
1,126 cases in v/hich violations were found, fifty-five and one-half per 
cent vjere adjusted in accordance '"dth regular standards and eighteen and 
one-half oorcent were compromised, a total of seventy-four percent. This 
nTimber is all the more striking when it is remembered tha.t the cases re- 
ferred to the Boards were the more difficult ones, where "orevious attempts 
at satisfactory settlement hrd failed, 

{*). A table showing the number of reported cases by State Offices is 
included in the s,ppendices. For the purooses of these statistics 
where a, number of complaints ere handled as a single case, only 
one has been counted, 

(**) This ta.ble is included in the a'TOendices, 



9S6l 



- 107 ~ 

though their value necessarily varied accordirii;; to the individual exper- 
ience of each office. The caliher of personnel v/as generally found to 
te the determining factor and the greater care Vifith v/hich the member- 
ship was chosen perhaps accounts for the larger success of Adjustment 
Boards over Local Compliance Boards. 

On the basis of these reports from the State Offices it is estimated 
that 3,000 Cases were referred to State and Local Adjustment Boards 
throughout the country. (*) The number a.nsider'ed varied greatly from 
state to state, with the largest mmber, 451, being heard by the Phila- 
delphia, Pennsylvania State Adjustment Board, which used three panels 
of members. 

The coordination of the Boards with the compliance program is well 
illustrated by the statistics obtained from a representative sample of 
eighteen offices. (**) These figures show the disposition of cases 
handled by both State and Local Adjustment Boards in the states selected. 
Practically all decisions were unanimous and but one ai:d one-half per cent 
were overruled by State Directors. Tiiis is highly indicative of the close 
cooperation existing between the State Offices and the Boards. 

An analysis of the disposition of the 1,413 cases handled by these 
eighteen sets of Adjustment Boards, slightly less than half the total 
number considered, shows that viol.-itions were fo\md to exist in eighty 
per cent of the cases. On the other hand fifteen and one-half per cent 
were rejected either for lack of evidence, on a positive finding of no 
violation, or because the Board felt it had no jiirisdiction. But four 
and one~half per cent of the cases referred were pending on May 27, 1935 
with no action having been talcen and the question of compliance undecided. 
The smallness of the latter number is accounted for by the fact that the 
activity of the Boards decreased considerably in the spring of 1935, 
after the power to approve compromises had been removed by Field Letter 
194, aiid with the growth of the practice of dropping certain types of 
cases by the field offices. This will be discussed further in the next 
section. 

The usefulness of Adjustment Boards as part of the adjustment tech- 
nique is manifested "by the large number of violations which were either 
adjusted in full or were settled on a compromise arrangement. Of the 
1,126 cases in which violations were found, fifty-five and one-half per 
cent were adjusted in accordance with regular standards and eighteen and 
one-half per cent v/ere compromised, a total of seventy-four per cent. 
This number is all the more striking when it is remembered that the cases 
referred to the Boards were the .lore difficult ones, where previous 
attempts at satisfactory settlement had failed. 

(*) A table showing the number of reported cases by State Offices is 

included in the appendices. For the purposes of these statistics 
where a number of complaints were hrmdled as a single case, only one 
has been counted. 

(**) This table is included in th-:i appendices. 



9861 



-ins-- : ■ 

It is see::., theref-re, t'/.at triG r.OP.rds -flayed a^i i;':ortant -oart in 
c;.tti-: ' co'-T ■':lic -.v: 'orr of c.^eo to "be co ■.nio.ereil by Go^-.Dli?nce Coivcils 
for -^rr-^'vs:'. 0." i^Bi-:^'lia r-v f'lr litic" tioi. TMp c^-acT^i.Gio:i is epV.ia- 
sizec. "b-/ t:ie fp.ct that i--. o:il^^ si--tef:-i - ei-cent of t :-.e -.-iola.tion canes 
wore t'l^Ti ~0Prl? \i--r-,'o?e to 3'P?.ch adjuGt-ient a. Of tlie renair.drr, five 
■oo-'C'Kit of t'.ie c-^nes -vc'-.^e dn--oe '. bocv.se fu-.-thei' action ^-'-^s -i.ot dee-\ed 
advisajlc •T;id five ncrc.vnt vrere pendin/j '".".len ths Zoard? ce5.sed to fvnc- 
tio'i. 

'iiiri-'"; t"ip cou.rse of ccnlia-.ce activities t-.o''e difficulty -."as e::- 
■■lerie ■'.ced in ai-ran-7i". "-,■ i-eetiy-s at ti '"c --..en .^ll nc 'oors covJ d at'cend, 
t^Jiis -olaciny a rectriction on tii;^; u^e oi t ne Boards. This situation -'ps 
sor-2'7bat a.lleviated by yrantiny the St -te Offices authorit'- tc anxiint 
?lterna,tes :o,n ."!Ove:''bcr .-O, l<^o4.(*) It iG felt, ho'-tver, that hD-C. scie 
;;or?.sv.re of ad:c-c:.;nte cc ■■ ir Tspticn for tiic tii'e consu.ied been "■''.rcvidod trie 
x>rooleri of .?tte:n.',.r:hce -'^•.-Id have bsr.:^ l:"r :'~ly elin.inatfd. At ?;v r-te, 
the erroerie-^.ce .of tn.^' Oo; o^.i-nce Dix'-isio'-. in the vse of State ?."ir. Local 
Adjustnent hoards, is stno'i';! ' indie- tivt,- o l' t he advanta"es ^nc' vlu; of 
providin;: a nethod of i :oartir.l hcf'rin.;s. 

Ths s I'm dicrea.se .th 'c'v ".sr of th.r ""oards i"ith the s-orin" of 19rj5 
stron";!;;" r^. .'lectec the o-ndf.:--,l di'.inteyrr-.ticn of th' 'ipA. pro-i'rari. An 
axlvsrse i"iri .-s, a '"■■rch"'.," pti'.itud"^ of o'T.v^y-.ition o'" the part of induptry 
and the nU'."'.ic, anri, rev n^s'es in th' court .^., .".].l nci;h.tened by the la.ch 
of clear, dofin.itc "O'^.li.'jiea of ncti'm :^r. ':■':■.€ oart of 'TIA., so dishePz-rtened 
the nore cpnscie-itious iP'ioers of the 'vi"^a,"i''.'s that little enth^^sias"^ vras 
left to caniyr p'l the v/or . ^he fiel'". offices, ■ i' -'Mrfhile, atterroted to 
s-lva;~e ■■'hat .the ' could of tie deter ior- t Ln.'j coy ;li".nco situation b"'" 
sus'oencins "ction. o\ t '.^se codes 'vhich 'apA becone for T.iractical -ourhoses 
virtu".ll'" U".e"iforcp.'-yif:. , i-. o-^'.-^r to c":~centrate t'leir ef'.^ortt: o-^ rotain- 
i'^.y tlie labor r.id biisi-acps strndardj '^>iic ■ h"^. beei yained in t'lc. larger, 
better or^ydzer] in.d'i\stri3s, !?uc'' •"' coiTrse of action, ten-'.iorr.r"" in its 
nature, le ."t little roon. for the \''so of tie Achiurtncnt Boards, , Accord- 
in.'^ly, b" . ay, 1C35, hut fe--' "-o^.rc',s n-ere ecntinuin'^ to fun.ction, th.- ac- 
tivity of the ^'a.j'"ri''y 'la.vin;: te'ipora.ril"' cease:^.. 

Section T - Gojinroidsin y »nd fv^y-'ii- of cases . Prior to June, l?3d-, it 
has been s'lo'-'i, -•'.o st?n':'ards"of ax.just-.ent ]iad been p.donted by the COi- 
"olia:iCe Division, althmv^'h sone develo^ni.rnt alony this line had 'oeep- in- 
itia.ted tirrou';h th.e enoerience of individual field offices, horeover, 
durin'_, t.h.e -^.jcr uart of the -seven and o:io-ivalf '.lonths "orecedin'^ Pield 
Letter 1:'3 ver- little ■ enhhasis "'as laic, on the nadrin'-; of restitution 
for nast violations ii the rd.just '.ent of cases, "^hile this policy of 
a.d.justr!3nt on the basis of assura/^ce of future co'roliance only "cis soon 
reco.yized b"- comliance of:'.'iciP.lr. -'^s Tin.s'"tisfa,ctoi"", the oeveloiincit of 
defiiite staidards of rdjas.t,,ent 'as left to be s."ia-oed by the daily e::- 
■periences of oersons in the-fiel'l -.'ho "cro a ctiia.ll^' eri'ir Z'^d^ in dealing 
■Tith code violati'--^-i.s. (** ) 



(*) Piel-^ L.->ttcr 102. 



(**) Tne <■ velon'^ent o" t'le sti-irares r id loolicy of adjustnent has 
been iscusGed su ira, Cha.iDter III, -yi. ir)~''3 



9861 



-109- 

During this period many complaints ^lere adjusted v;ithout any pay- 
ment of back v^ages at all, or with restitution only to the complainant 
in a sura determined "by conference \;ith both parties. Thus, it was com- 
mon for wage claims to be compromised by agreement between the complain- 
ing employee and the respondent, often at only a s;nall fraction of the 
full araount alleged to be due. This was a natural result of the lack 
of definite standards, the absence of an adequate adjustment staff, and 
the restrictions placed on the improvement of compliance technique by 
strict adherence to the principle that all proceedings had to be initiated 
.by the filing of a formal complaint by someone presumably acquainted with 
the facts. Moreover, Bulletin No. 7 provided that arbitration was a 
proper means of adjustment. (*) 

This problem was much more acute in cases involvin^; labor violations 
than in those concerning trade practice since in the letter type it was 
generally impracticable to include restitution as a feature of adjustment. 
The reasons for tnis already h^ve been briefly stated and will be shown 
further in the subsequent discussion on outstanding problems in the 
handling of trade practice complaints. 

Finally, on June 13, 1954, the Compliance Division acted to end 
this unsatisfactory condition in the compliance practices of the field 
offices. At that time there was issued a complaint mamial, atta.ched to 
Field Letter 1251 It contained instructions on the proper handling of 
labor complaints and promulgated standards of rdjustment, based on ex- 
periences in the field eind compiled largely from the observations and 
knowledge of' the travelling Field Representatives. 

In setting up guides to be followed in adjusting cases, Field Let- 
ter 125 recognized that the practical aspects of "code administration 
for compliance" required some elasticity in those standards for unusual 
cases. Accordingly, it was provided that where there was a question as 
to the financial ability of the respondent to make full restitution, or 
where the payment of an overtime rate constituted a hardship, or where 
other circumstances suggested an exception from the general rule, the 
case should be referred to the State Adjustment Board for decision as 
to whether a compromise settlement ought to be accepted. (**) The chief 
re£,son for this procedure was stated to be that the aim was to obtain 
as nearly as possible the full amount due the employee. It was stated 
that a compromise was sometimes necessary to prevent the employee from 
receiving even less or nothing at all. (***) This provision was reiter- 
ated and made the exclusive procedure for' compromising cases by Supple- 
mentary Meiurandum Ko. 1, issued with Field Letter 125. (****) 



(*) Bulletin IJo. 7, p. 15. 

(**) Field Letter 125, pp. 4,5. 

(***) Ibid, p. 4. ... 

(****) Supplementary Memo. No. 1, pp. 4, 7. This v.'as also repeated in 
Field Letter 143, p. 1. 



-110- 

The •'uocccure stotc-r". ir. riolc. Le'-^ter nS vjia Sup;olenent?r3'- 
LemOiT-.ic.uin iToi 1 -"-as closely folio e" 1)" i'.'n;- St"te Offices ir. rll C3.c. :-^ 
'•he ;e :u jxist -.ent -'as so-n.-:lit r.t less: than the full ajiovait 'jhich hac "oeen 
Cefinitel,7 detemined to oe ."ce. I'herc of.s, ho- evor, a ] ar-e n-oralier 
of casec in v/hich the fc.cts '-.'.re o :j;cu:'e cjid in 'jhich conflicting stats- 
nent£. ty Lmoloyces ^nd r.;s-ionc'.-..;nt;.; .:r:x-e it difii'^ult to c"eter;iine the 
degree of violation --ith acc-racj'. In Evxh cacfcF. it vas the practice 
for the field officts to arrive at the rjiount of rontitution 'bj'- ■loirinc 
an aroitrary decision on the fa:ts, r.'hich VLsuall:" represonted a corn- 
pro.jise beti-:er-n the stntenent- iresented oy the co: rolainr-jit and the 
respcnc.cnt. 

The line of risti.iction beb-'evn the r.e t' 'O ...lasses of cases is thin, 
'.7her3 the cj-.ouiit of restitution had 'ca n determined but it \7cS desired 
to acccjit a ler,ser ar:o-imt LscruG'r of the rer,- .onrent ' s inability to paj^ 
in full, the cace '-n.--: zlciz' e-' . s." a •.o iroriise and', referred to the State 
Adjur^tvent Hoard. (*),' Ii , ho-Tever, the case --rr one '--here the 
evidence var oonflict._iri;^_ and J.n:,on elusive _, fo tiir.t it ya.!? ne_cesr-ary 
to malce an arbitrary findirfj of fact T7}'ach atte:ipted to partially 
reconcile the two opyiosing stories of the conplainant and the re- -col: 

spondent, it vras not clfissif it^ij. as .-. co-.'-^ronise and reference to the 
State Adjustment So-ard '.-ras nade -annecessary. The latter tj-^e usually 
involved snail ornployers 'jho kept little or no records, and covrDri'rcd 
a substantial proportion of the co.nlaints handled "oy the Co:'plirnce 
Division. Such cases i-'ere sometimes referred to State Adjustment 
Boards, out o-^.ly for assistance in detorrain-j tho facts. 

The iprocedure credited b;^ Tield Letter 125 and Supplenentar;,'- 
j.ieiorrncuxi i'o. 1 reuaAnod in effect uuitil January 18, 1935. On thr.t 
dat= there ras issued Piel':^ Letter 1?A, nhich r^ivestec" the S^rte Ad- 
justncnt I'oardc of their juri c i:,tion to .•\p-';)rove co'r-iro'-'.ise.s, ^r.d. 
placed the sole power to a-.-thorize this tj^-oe of f.djiist-'.cnt in the 
Regional Direct cm. 

The nei- inst::u.c''.ionc pt-'-^c.' the -lOlicy of the Ho- '/Tlioncc Division 
to be not to consider violations adjust j,' \nl. s'; fiill restitution to 
all 9.:plcyecs ■ a.c nade, in ad; it ion to secviring present co'-]olimce. (**) 
The errclusive procedure to -e follo'.;3c in depa^rtures fror. this -Dolicj- 
wa'. as folio.---?: (***) ^r^ierz theri '-.'as rn inda-!: "rial ad,just:!ent asjency 
a-uthj:.-ii3ti;. to hant'le labor . o-r laints and its viov-s on the settle-i.ent 
agreec "ith the State Director's, the latter could close the case on 
the CO- )ro-:ise basis. A su'-s'aiy state-ient of the co'-iD.:o--!ise pnd the 
reasons therefore had to be sent to the Ooorc.inating "rrnch, rith a 
coijy to the Regional Director. 'L ere the industrial adjustnent r-gency 
and the State Di-rector failed to a ree, or ; hexs there va.s no s-ach 



(*) The procedure before the :..o-t.ix. ha- been tre.:;,---&c" in the -;r..-ecec.ing 
section. The ntmber of such ^ases is indicated in a table in the 
ap-oondices, note footnote p. 105 s-a-nra. 

(**) I'ield Letter 194, p. 2. . . 

(***)lbid., p. o. Tills procedure ^'as repeated 1:1 Ofiice ' an'aurl, 
111-4-113.25. 

93S1 



-111- 

ajenc7, the lile •■ith a av-vuxry of the cace pnd t}:'- "reasons for the 
conro-'.ise recon: .endation in zxvjliv.r:te had. to 'oe r.cnt to the Regional 
Director, 

The r.e.'^ional Director then revie'-ed the file, referring it to the 
Regiona-l Corriliance CoLmcil for recounendations and hearint'^ vrithin 
his discretion. His decisi: n vras the final NRA. action except in those 
cases involving considerations of najor policy or questions affecting 
indxistry r.em'bers in other regions, in vrhich event the case v^as trajis- 
mitted to Washington for disposition. If the Regional Director ap- 
proved, the cornpronise the summary prepared by the Str.te Office nas 
sent to the Coordinating Branch with cor.ir.ents, (*) 

Although the instructions of iaeld Leti;er 194 -rere explicit in 
stating that all cases adjusted, for lesr, than full restitution had to 
"be a;pT)roved in accordtmcc Tith the --ii-ocedurp provided therein, actually 
fevr cases ^-'ere so hand.led. In analysis of Ste„te Office case files 
disclosed that but 44 conplaints '-(-.re referred to He.'i'ional Directors 
for approval of conpromise adjustnents during the four months folic. dng 
the issuance of these instructions, (**) TThile allo'-^ances for error 
may place this nuraher Slightly higher, nevertheless the number is 
significant, 

A partial clue to the snail r.unL-er of conpro .iso- cases approved 
by HegioneJ Directors is the follovdng extract from a letter to the 
Philadel-ohia Office by the Chief of the Coordinating Branch, 

"The proposed adjustnent need not be submitted to the Regional 
Director in cases rrhich have been submitted to the State Adjustment 
Board because of the difficulty in establishing the facts. The type 
of casts vhich should bo sent to '..'ashington are those in -jhich a compro- 
mise has been made on the ar.iou;t d.ue. "(**?) 

This distinction in t'._o def.'.i'dtion C'f comproKisc cases rra,s re- 
cognized, in the field mider the i.istrxictions issued, in Field. Letter 125, 
It is mentioned here again .ecause na::iy of the offices, to a.void. follou- 
ing the procedure provided oj Picld Letter 194, preferred to treat cases 



(*) Several expjimles of surimarie^ of conprop.ise cases approved, in 

accordance vith this -Troccdu.re liave been included in the aropendicee 
to illustrate more clearly the ^.lethods used sxiCi tyipes of cases in 
rrhich coirnroiiises '.7ere recomjiended. i;ote that financial inabilit;'' 
•""as often coupled, -.-rith some other reason for red.ucing the amount 
of restitution, 

(**) See table in ap-oendicec, 

(***)ln ITIA Studies S-jecio.l Z;:hibits Uorh. i.Iaterials -vBS 



561 



-112- 

as comrjror.iisec! on the facts rather than on the amount. This procedure, 
to-_^ether v/ith the stnaf':">.rc:s state., in I'ield Letter 195, v/ere clearly de- 
si/;;ned to raise the auality of adjustaents in the field. 'Although the 
pur^^ose of intendea progress in raasinr the standards of wor'.: and in 
em-ohasizin;^, full restitution for pai-t violations v/as lauda"ble, it failed 
of fulfillment hecauss the compliance structure already had "become too 
greatly luidermined hy otlier factors, such as the change in public opinion, 
.the lack of a clear enforcement policy, and internal organization 
difficulties in the IIRA.. 

Closely related 'to the compromise of cases, another practice 
develo-oed out of the ezi^jencies of the sit-aation for relieving the "oressure 
of work Y!B.s the dropping of cases. I'his originally arose in connection 
v/ith the service trades, v/here the large volume of com;)laints and the in- 
determinate status of the cooes follov/ing their -oartial suspension (*) 
made the problem acute. 

It has been shovm in the earlier sections of this chapter that 
the plan of procedure provided by Bulletin Tio, 7 and the inadequate facili- 
ties for handling complaints in the field had resulted in congestion and 
a gradual piling up of y/ork in the State Offices. The similar situation 
which presented itself in 17asnington served to empha.size the problem. 
Some idea of the magnitude cf the burden of com-olaints on hand, many of 
them entirely untouched by the adjustment procedtire, is disclosedi by the 
joeriodical statistical reports cf the field offices to Washington. 
These shov/ that about the time Field Letter 135 was issued over 15, 00 
labor complaints and slightly less than 2,000 trade practice cases were 
pending in the various field offices. (**) These figures grew even la.rger 
in the months that folloT?ed, partly because of the' standards of adjust- 
ment for labor cases created by Field Letter 125, partly because the in- 
creased use of Field Adjusters tended to sti.".mlate the filinp; of complaints, 
and for a variety of other rear-ons. 

The picture that presented itself, then, was field organization 
staffed without a sufficient number of Field Adjusters, with no exroerience 
and -fvith little chance for training, which v/as charged v/ith the enormous 
task of administering the provisions of 55^ codes covering 2,500,000 
employers. (***) This is emphasized by the fact that many field people 
interpreted the duty of obtaining compliance as including a positive 
obligation to take the initiative in searching out and. correcting 
violations, rather than waiting "or complaints to be formally filed. 

This was the discouraging "oicture of the field, offices' situation in 
the earl},'-' summer of IS^A. In the succeeding months, as the personnel be- 
came ex^Derienced and new positions were added ^ and as methods and techniques 
became more nearly perfeccec, the outlook became brighter. Hov/ever, until 
the close of compliance activities the specter of a large volume of un- 
adjusted and untouched cases remained!.. 



(* ) Executive" Orde'r "fiz '(Hay 'iP,'," iVS'l'-J ACjiiinistrative Orders XS?', Xj'o, X54. 

(**) See statistical rer)orts from field offices, files of Coordinati.a ; "".ranch, 

field division. 
¥**) S ee SuT^ra p. 2. 

98fil' 



. . .-113- 

It is a manifest triith that so onerous a 'biird.en was "bo-and to liinder 
the efficiencj of the Goirnliance or^-anization. This restriction on the 
field offices '.vas accentuated ty the character of a large proportion of 
the corn-Dlaints. A sulsstantial part concerned the retail and service trades, 
which, although large in n-omtoer of establishments and em-oloyees, were 
made u-' of many small units which were practically u.nor. -anized. Many 
such enterprises were suhmarginal in character, v/ere -ooorly managed, and 
few had adequate records. Although individual casec- were unimportant, 
each required a disproportionately large amount of the .Field Ad^juster's 
time. Virtually every practical pro"blem of compliance vras present in 
their handling, the lacli of any reasona^ble ground for federal jurisdiction, 
a comparatively lov/ order of intelligence among both employers and wor'.:ers, 
the absence of adequate employment records, and their smallness and generally 
poor financial condition. 

In dealing with this type of employer, cases against which consti- 
tuted the "bullc of the back-brea-.cing load of unad usted complaints, two 
courses wrje 0T>en . One had been indicated by the President in Bulletin 
No. 1 as a ^.^oclaration of the polic.-- to be follov/ed: 

"In my inaugral I laid do\rn the simple proposition that nobody 
is i^oing to starve in this country. It seems to be equally plain that no 
business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to 
its worlrers has any right to continue in this country. Sy 'business' 
I mean the v/hole of commerce as \7ell as the y/hole of industry; by v/orkers 
I mean all wcrkers - the v;hite collar class as well as the men in overalls; 
and 'by living v/ages I mean more than a bare subsistence level - I mean the 
wa.tes of decent living." (*). 

In spite of the clearness of this statement of policy it was not 
ftllowed, nor v/as there another lolicy adopted to take its place. Instead, 
as a direct outgrov/th of the con'olaints nlan of procedure, action v/as 
taken only against those members of industry willing to adjust their 
violations and against larger operators, while cases against members of 
these retail and service trades, who refused to cooperate or who ^"'erc 
financially una,ble to comply, v.'ere droppec . 



'e 



This dropping of cases v/as primarily a field practice, designed, 
however, to rid the adjustment staffs of the useless burden of unadjusted 
comnolaints, oh which legal enforcement steps could not be maintained. (*•>') 

ThereforV, pending d-termination of the policy to be followed' v/ith 
respect to the industries mentioned, which was not within the power of the 
Compliance Division, it -oroceeded to meet the situation as best it could, 
and at the same time to force the issue. 



(*) Bulletin I'o.' 1 ("statement by the president outlining MA policies) 
p. 1, Office Manual V-B-1. 

(**) lor example, see case against iiann Overall Co., 21 Paso, Texas, 
national Compliance Board minutes, April 2, 1954. 



98(^1 



-114- 

Acco"c in;j;ly) on August 4, 1934 the State offices were ins-feructed that 
cases of violation in the service trades -v/here the i-espondent had no NBA 
insignia to 'be ordered removed need not 'oe sent to 'Tashington. (*) 
Such cases v/ere reported as "[Referred to Compliance Division", with a 
special notation, and the files were closed and retained in the State 
Office. This was followed on September 4,, 19S4 ty a procedure for dro;oping 
complaints against small ecta^blishments v/hich refused to com;oly, v/here 
the viola,tions v/ere not important because of special circustances. (*■') 
It was felt that if such complaints were allowed to remain in the files 
unadjusted they were a constant source of irritation and ^uncertainty of 
procedure, and constituted a real mental hazard to more important ad- 
iustnent v/ork. 

The State Offices were instructed to segregate these cases in a 
special suspense file to 'be exar.iinec. oj the IBA Pield ?.epresentativGs who 
v;ould authorize them to be dropped. For all practical purposes, hov/ever, 
the c:-.seE v/ere treated a,s dropped v/hen placed in the suspense file, since 
the Pield ?.e-orpsenta-&ives v/ere accuscomed to rely upon the judgment of the 
particular State Office, unless manifestly wrong. There \7ere no instruc- 
tions governing notification to complainants and resToudents that cases 
had been cro":^'oed and "oractices in this respect varied greatly v/ith in- 
dividual offices. This procedure continued to be follov/ed, although it 
was ham-oered somev/hat by the small number of .^ield Representatives and 
the consequent infrequency v/ith v/hich they v/ere able to visit. all State 
Offices. Since the instructions just mentioned v/ere issued in connection 
with service trades complaints, it v/as found necessary later to make it 
clear that the procedure aiDplied to all old unadjusted complaints. (**t) 

It v/as a natural step from the procedure for dropping old, unadjust- 
ed causes, to attempt to devise soue means for eliminating nev/ complaints 
of the same type. The Field Representa.tives instructed the various State 
Offices not to docket nev/ service tra,de complaints unless they appeared on 
their face to b'e important. The State Offices also made use of a supple- 
mentary employee's statement on wages and hours to v/ee.d out illegitima.te 
complaints and to furnish them bett.er information before beginning the 
handling of such cases. (***••) Y_e\'i complaints under the service codes 
v/er~ thus treated as "primary rejects" ano. the complainants v/ere notified 
that no action v/culd be taken. 

'"'ith' the establishment of the Regional Offices and the issuance 
of Field Letters 133 and 194 there v/as a. change in this situation. The 
latter provided standards of adjustment and an exclusive method for 
adjustment of cases at less than full restitution, mentioned earlier in 
this section. This v/as interpreted by some persons as superseding 
previous instructions on the dropping of cases, but the fallacies of 
this viev/point v/ere soon recognized and the distinction between com"oro- 

mis_^ed and dropped, cases continued.^ _ ^ ^ . , 

X*) jielCi Let'ter 14fi, p. 2.' "s'ee 'also Vic'ld Letter Y54," p. Yo (i'tem <^4). 
(**) Field Letter 158, p-o.1-2 

(*•■'* )Fielo Letter lGG,p. 2 . . - .. 

(**=''=0 In KRA Studies Special HrJiibits '7ork Materials ;/35 



9Sf^l 



_"1 1 -■- 

'"ith the eloper contact bet'.een fiif^, P.ejlonrl oi'fices and the 
St-'^-te Offices the ir-.otice of. droirpinfj; -rua.". in r; talkie cases csj.ne more 
into use. The ?.eglcns.l "'ielr. ?,epres.t=:'tr.tive5 i/ere enabled to become 
familiar v/ith local situations and v/ith the personnel of each State 
Office, sc that they could adequately deternine the course of action 
to te follov/ed in each s'cate. 

As finally developed, the cla.Sc of dropped cas-s v;as hased on a 
number of reasons for suspending further efforts at adjustment. These 
reasons v/ere usually present in combination in individual co-ses. Tliese 
cases of suspension, mentioned "briefly, v/ere: financial inahility of the 
respondent to make restitution and cor.iply with the code; either legal 
or econor.iic unenforceability of code provisions; lack of sufficient de- 
finite evidence of violations to support Blue Ea^^le removal or reference 
to the Department of Justice (as in case of small operators where records 
were lackin/;) ; the existence of such general violations as to ren6.er 
co;.i-liance 'by conciliatory measures in the particular industry i.:i-oos~iole 
and v/hcre le-;al enforcement could not b? obtained (such s.s '7recking and 
Salava;;_,e, Restaurant and Motor Vehicle Retailing Industries); closely 
allied to the foregoing, y/here the industry was engaged solely in intra- 
state commerce and was ^Durelv local in character; and where the modifi- 
cation or susTJcnsion of code provisions made it inoiiitaljle to proceed 
further. The ar"olication of e-^ h of the above re sons for dropping 
cases varied according to local conditions, some offices drop"oing cases 
after making some efforts at adjustment a.nd others suspending all efforts 
under laarticular co-"es. 

This disorderly handling of cases reflected the confusion gro?/ing 
out of the failure to enforce the codes in the courts, the indecision 
of heaus of Ii?_A. in regard to certain ouestions of policy, and the con- 
se'-;uent loss of -orestige "by the I'lHA program in the eyes of industry and 
the pu"blic. Its worst effect was on the morale of the field staff, ivhich 
lost most of the enthusip>sm and ener."y needed to carry on the intensive 
co.apliance program necessary to -olace the codes on a sound, permanent 
"basis* It was, hov/evcr, a realistic a.pproach to the pro'blem. of conserv- 
ing time and facilities and enabling the concentration of efforts on the 
parts of the ambitious code program capable of and v.-orth being salvaged. 
This v/hole situation v/as a striking indication of the deterioration of 
the total com-liance picture and the shakiness of the structiore, with 
its resulting inequities as to firms v/illing to comply. Only one hope 
was left, that with the passage of the contemplated new lav/ it would be 
possible to renovate t"ne compliance scheme and to e^rrive at a sound 
basis for accomplishment of the original, basic objectives of raising 
the standards of employment anc> biisiness practices by c.rastic reorganiza- 
tion and code revision, coupled v/ith a strong , efficient program of 
enforcement. That this hoped-for solution must be regarded v/ith cynicism 
as rather problema,tical is londerstandable in the light of the history of 
ICIA during its two j'-ears of existence. 



98R1 



-116- 

A 'he.re summary of droppec' cases follows: of a total of 118, ''^77 
labor conplr.ints docketed, l--,ft'^3 v/ei'e dropped as outlined in this 
section. Of a totaJ of 5^^,423 trade practice complaints docketed, 
5,295 Y/ere so dropped.' 

With reference merely to the service trades- fisted in Adminis- 
trative Orders X-37 (May 23^ 1934), Z-5U (June 13, 193-1), X-54 (June 20, 
1934), (*) the fi.']:ures are as follo^Ts: of a total of 17,7'^l lahor 
complaints docketed, 375fi were dropped; of 1725 trade practice cases 
docketed in these trades, ^^45 v/ere dropped. I'aturally, y/ith the 
suspension of the trade practice provisions of the codes involved 
all pending cases as of May and June 1934 were dropped and so listed. 



(*) These Administrative Orders suspended the trade practice provisions 
of certain service trades. 



3 8 'SI 



1 



-117- 

COiPLIAKCL DIVISIOK A>T liJIC".".AL OFZICZS 

CT-xAPTiiH 71 

Section 1 - DeveloDment of internal. or.;.--^ni zstion. KRA began as 90. ex- 
periment in indii-strisl self-.-^overni-e:- 1. It vrns cor.tehnlEtc^ th^t 
the jovernmentel acministrstive a'^encie;-:; v'.iulo. act only ^^^ the iflterim 
while inca'.stry hec:me 'r.uif iciently '^'ell or_<r:-.i"ec. to ad:Tiinister its 
ov.'n coc.e rejuJstions. (*) This viilosc-jhy is lars-'ly res-oonsihl^ for 
the f&ilr.re to p^-^-vX-Au fur pn ac.enuate co.njl.^-^^^-ce mpchinery in the 
bn^inri^.-t:,. '.71 th the inceotion of indi^otr-' codification, compleints 
of violations began to come into ••7asiT''''-"t'^n and the KilA. was soon 
flooded with them, for tee apor.'vp-^ of co. es v/as a S'lo'- proc^^ss and 
the pro^.T'ara of inciustrial ■ self-r="'^srnmer.t la.^ .cd considerably behinc 
anticipations. 

It became apparent that a soccial g:overnj'nent?l ?gency would have 
to be crcatrd to handle these coi.iolaints, at least imtil the Code 
Authorities v/cre or-^anized pnd functioning;-. V."!iile the Nftional In- 
dustrial Recovery Act contained no express pover to estaolish a 
CTompliencc or"ani2ation, it ^7as inferred from the clause "To effectuate 
the policy of this title, the President is hereby aiitj.orizcd to 
estrblish su.ch agencies ... as he_may i"ind necessary. "(**) 

Accordin-^ly, the comnlirncc Divi-ion r/rs set up on October 26, 1933. (***) 
On thrt date the A.c?j;-inistrator ■: ef ined the dirties of the National Compliance 
Director, the ]\Tational Counliance Board and the Corailiance Division and 
dcle^-ated to thc>so agencies the authority in compliajice matters which the 
Prcsic.ent in ;/;enera.l terms had,. 1. elevated to the Adruinistrator under Ex- 
ecutive Ordcrs-lTo. 6173 ( Jujic 16, 1933) and 6205-A (July 15, 1933). 
General John'^on named himself interim National Compliance Director. 

'By the time the Comjlionce Division had been set up, sixty- three 
codes of fair competition h,-d been approved by the Prcsid.ent. These 
included codes for automobile ;nanuf£ct\-u'in^, coat and siiit, cotton, 
silk and rool textiles and rayoti, electrical manufacturing, hosiery, 
ice, iron and steel, lumber and timber prodiicts, men's clothing, 
motor vehicle retailing, retail trade, thro^ving, and ujidcrwcar and 
allied prooxicts. 

The paramount emphasis therefore in MEIA was, and for some time 
Continued to be, on code making. Complaints of violations of the 
approved codes, however, were being' received, daily in increasing 
numbers. The problem of organizing for compliance forced, itself on 
the busy Administrator and his immediate assi'^tants. This is not to 
imply that General Johnson had lost sight of com:jli3nce. In fact many 

(*) The method, of rp iroach to the compliance problem is discussed 

in Chapter II. pp. -5-10 ^upra. 

(=1=*) ITetional Incxistrial Recover:/ A.ct, Titlr I, Sec. 2(a). 

(***) Office Order 40. 

9861 



-118- 

weeks prior to the creation of the Gomjlir-nce Division he had detailed 
his son, Lieutenant Eilbourne Johnston, to the Blue Zaglo Division, 
to f.-Soist in workin^^ out a compliance or-jrnization in connection with 
the President's P.e employment Agreement, which procedure was later 
adapted to cote compliance. 

Nevertheless over three and a half months elapsed between the 
approval of the first code on July 9, 19.".3 and the delegation to 
someone less husy than the Ac'xninistrator of aut.ority to deal with 
complaints of code violations. 

In the meanwhile, of course, efforts were made by coi. e authorities 
and c eputy acrainistrators to adjust violations by education and the 
pressure of ojinion from within the industry. 

In at ler;it one im'ustry - Lumber and Timber Prociucts - a number 
of cases which hr d failed of adjustment were forwarded to HRA with 
the request that enforcement steps be taken. (*) These complaints 
were considered by the deputy administrator and his le^al advisor ajid 
were sent to the Attorney General's Office for informal opinion. The 
outcome at that juncture is not apparent from a study of the files. 
The cases were returned to FRA, held for some time in the Ic,?.?! division 
and then mislaid. YVaen duolicate files coverin, : the cases had been 
assembled by the Code Authority the !T,'tionaI Compliance Eoard and the 
Compliance Division v;ere o ."ieratin ;.■. 

The Compliance organization as set Uj on October 25, 1933 was 
relatively simple. It consisted of (a) the Connliance Division with 
its twenty-six offices in the field and (b) the National Compliance 
Board. The National Complirnce Director was head of both the division 
and the coi\ncil. 

The fimction of the Compliance Divi^'ion was to bring aboLit 
compliance with approved codes and of the P3A by ec.ucation and 
conciliation. This function was to oe exercised in both the ore- 
liminary and final stages except insofar as agencies of industrial 
self-government had been authorized to handle such matters. Failing 
adjustment, it was the further duty of the Comiliance" Division to 
obtain prima facie evidence of violation said, present it in convenient 
form to the National Compliance Board. The Board afforded the violator 
an opportunity to be heard before it invoked the powers of the enforce- 
ment agencies of the government, the courts and the Federal Trade 
Commission. That is, the serai- judicial Compliance Board, under the 
Admini'^trator, made policies and in specific cases made decisions. 
The Compliance Division exhausted every reasonable effort to adjust 
violations and prei^ared cases for presentation to the Board, and took 
the necessary administrative steps to carry out the decisions of the 
Board. 



(*) See files of Belcher Lumber Company, >^enterville, Alabama, and 
cases listed in National Co.mliance Board iiiinutes of Tanuary 
31, 1934. 



9861 



-119- 

Chancres to be noted l^ter 'brou.ght the Deouty Adininistrator of the 
code and his le/;'al advisor more and more prominently into the final 
stages of compliance irncedure, (*) htit in the teginnin.5 the organiza- 
tion was in oroad ovtline as si:riule ss pbove described. 

The internal organization of the Coiiipliancc I}ivision under Office 
Order 40 consisted of four branches - adiainistrr-tive, labor, trad-e 
practice and Blue Eagle. 

The Administrative Branch handled matters pertaining to personnel, 
property, and finance for the Complirnce Division headquarters and the 
twenty-six field offices, and .■^Iso the distribution of orders and 
instructions and the receiving and. consolidation of reports. 

The Labor Branch was charged with the examination of files of 
com jlaints cjiarginr^ violations of laDor pro^'isions of approved codes 
to a,scertain whether or not the evicence cont,iied in a file constituted 
a prima facie case of violation. These files v/ere received from the 
field officep. and from Coce Authorities. In .lost instances an ad- 
ditional effort was made to adjust the case by corres>ondence. This 
effort at adjustment still held out the olive branch, but none the 
less it contained the threat tjiat, failinp 'cjustment , the case would 
be referred to the rational Com.lirnce Board, Over the whole period 
of COiiipliance Division activity this so-called "last chance" letter 
v;as retr-ii^ed and res\ilted in the -cjustraent of about 2ip- of all cases 
referred to '.Ve shin;; ton by the field ?nd Code Aiithorities. (^=^) 

Failing to obtain an adjustment as a. result of the last chance 
letter, the branch s^unmarized the aalient facts in the case for the 
convenience of the members of the National Compliance Board, and 
obtained the recommendation of the Deputy Administrator. On the 
basis of this s^'Oirimciry given to board members in advance of a meeting, 
the Board decided whether or not it would set a date to hear the 
case. At the hearing, the evidence was presaited by counsel to the 
Compliance Division or by assistant co^onsel as-iiped to the Labor 
Branch. After the hearing the Board might refer the case, through 
its co\"nsel and the Legal Division, to the Department nf Justice, 
cr it might return it to the Labor Branch with instructions to obtain 
additicnal evidence or to make further attempts at adjustment, or for 
reference to the Federal Trade CoiTimission for investigation. 



(*) Office Order 85 (April 12, 193-i). 

(^*) See copy of "last chance" letter In i^T?Jl StuJies 
Sisecial Lxliibits V/ork L.aterial ',,-'^0 



9861 



(The Tjnited States District Covrt:- pnd the Fer'er-l Tra/.e CoiraTiisr,ion 
are no...ec. in the "'-tional Inca;; uri,,;l ^..ecover;; Act &s the e.-;encies to 
enforce the set. As ;: o.-tuer of i;:ct o:\ii one or two cases were handled 
by tue Fcder.^.l Ti-ade Co.aulsiuon -under Section .3(b) of Title I of the 
Act. The time eleiP.ent r'ecided the aliuost inv,?risble :reierence .^iven 
the corirts. 'Thile there, is r,o sv.-2ii t.iinj ra a typical FTC case, an 
e>:;:.;ii:i- tioT; of r.'r;..o;:'. c-:-^-s la- de 'oy Vav Co'V, : i-'ncc Division in 1933 
Khowed thft ordin-'rily tr-o yearr^ or nore s ro req":.ired from the time an 
initial coir.plrint is filei' Ydth the Goi.i' d'',,;ion to the is':u?nce of a 
cease yr.L c'e^^iist ori.er. As im inv^.sti .• tii-! ■; ri:enc.>', ho"'ever, the 
Pederr-''. Trade Coniaiysion renc.ered in-/;-l-a:'ble help to the TRk. It was 
well e'-jtablished anc acce;ited by the vfst ruyiorit/ of members of trade 
fnd indus-try. Its technii^ue v-s ba^ei on erqjerience. Its investi?;ator3 
were oitter trsinef'' ?nd ottter irio t"'; n 'c.',o'-)e in 'I'hA. An r-llotment of 
hKA X -Ks w?s nrde to trie Corrs-d'-.f-icn to covsr fjie costs of investigations 
rnac.e by tlie; latter. One huaif'red •'^r.^ even .'HA ca^es, several being 
stxrve,,- n of inda^tries or parts of in^'.-'-stvic';. , 'vere invest! :t- ted and 
reported o;. :.■■■; t'r-e FTC.) 

The Trnue Practice 'drrnc!. hpnided. cases involving violation of 
trace 'jractice jrovi-.-ions of rp ^roved co^ es in the manner just out- 
lintC. for I.r^bor co.i,:lr iuts. 

T.'ie lUve Eagle irrnch '.vas ch-'-r-ed -vith the duty of rdninistcrin-; 
the Piiil. . T'jese i. ".tier; v-ore shortly p'3^i ,ned to the Labor Branch. (*) 
Cthtr iL-nctions lorcierly -lerforined by t-ie 31"ae Za..:ie Division were 
as;'i :ned elsewhere. The Trade Associrtion Section was comtituted a 
separr.te Division (**) am. tne Insi nia S'^ction v,'as -placed under the 
Auiuiiiistr," tivo Di^'i ion of 'TiA .'ro^.jer. 

jviv.ch of the p.rocedure for nandlin;, PPJi. complaints was ada.pted 
to code violations and ;nost rf the ^er^'onnel of t/ie dlue Eagle Division 
was t-'ken over by the Goiii .li;-::ce Division. 

A thoroT.gh nder?.ta;...Lin of the evolution of code compliance is 
not possible witho-.t a io.ov.'led..;e of the iii story of the President's 
He- employment Ap.reement. ('vorh iia.terialr. 7o. ) 

In January, 1S24, the field or ^anizt tion of the Compliance 
Division was expanded. (***) State Directors ••neve appointed by the 
National Effier-per.cy Co-.:i::icil, ^.-^.'.o also actec" as State 'NRA. Directors 
for e3.ch State. They tooh over the duties of the former District 

Directors. Contin.itj of aCmini strati on was insured in miost States — ■ -- 

by transf errirj'"; oersonnel fro.n the hi/- tric-t- to -the" St'at'e' Of fices. 
Branch offices were e'-'ta dished in r.ome of the populous States, (*=i«**) 



(^) Comijliance Divi-ion . emora/iCVu-. ho. 1 (hov. 29, 1033). 

(''^) Office Older Ho. <:6 (Dcce-der 12, 1953). 

('***) Kefer to Cr.apter IV., n.i ;ra. 

(-«^>:!=i<^ Branch offices were estaoliSiied in Albany and Buffalo, N. Y. , 

Pittsbur hi. Pa., }'ouston, Tex-^'j and Los Anpelcs, Calif. 
9861 



-121- 

By Office Order 85, (*) the Compliance Division was reorganized, 
A &overnment Contracts and Competition Section vas erected which 
later was constituted a separate division. (**) The Labor Branch 
and the Trede Practice Branch were abolished. An Analysis Brsnch 
was created which took over the personnel of the Labor and Trade 
Practice Branches and those functions of the two former branches 
havinj to do with analysi? of cases for ;n;.fiiciency of evidence and 
efforts at adjustment. PPJl ma.tters were also handled by this Branch. 
The presentation of cases oefore the Nptional' Compl iance Board and 
its successor the Compliance Council thereafter, was made by the code 
legal advisor of the code involved in each case. The Jield Section 
was elevated to e branch separate from the Administrative Branch. 
A Control Section was set up in the Acministrative Branch desi~ned to 
expedite the lif-ndling of cases. The positions of rational Qomiliance 
Director and Assistant Fational Compliance Director was abolished. 
The head, of the division became Chief, Compliance Division. As 
under Office Order 40, the counsel to the Compliance Division 
continued to oe a m.ember of th,e Le:;;al Division. 

Section 2 - General aspects of insignia display and removal . It imist 
be repeated that tiie Kational Industrial Recovery Act provided no 
a.dministra tive sanctions. The Act made the violation of a code a 
misdemeanor ounishsble by fine ('^■-f^) and also made it an unfair trade 
practice within the meaning of the Federal Trade Act. (*=►*=") We may 
disregard the latter because of its non-use. (Previous chapters 
have ou.tlined the popular support accorded the program., part of which 
at least was emotional, and the gradual waning of popular enthusiasm 
due to delays in bringing violators to book, but chiefly, perhaps, 
to the subsidance of the feeling of panic v;hich gripped the nation 
early in 1935.) Some emiDloyers from the outset were non-cooperative. 
The sheer volujne of violations made administrative penalties desirable 
from an enforcement standpoint. The legality of such acjninistrative 
penalties must be left to the lejal historian. They involve, among 
others, the question: May the Feu.eral. jovernment sanction and pmmote 
an organized economic boj-cott? Such ad:nini,strative penalties were 
devised in the form of removal of IWA insignia (^'=^***) and later by 
renp.pring violators under certain conditions ineligiole to obtain 
governm.ent contracts. (>"*****) 



*) April 12, 1934. 

*'*) Sec 'listory of C-overnment Contracts Division, FHA files. 

***) MFJl, Title I. Sec. 3 (f). 

=^***) Ibid, Sec. 3 (b). 

■^****) Adainistrative Order X-Al (October 17, 1333); 

Office Order 40. 

*-^-"^-*) Executive Order Ho. 6646 (l,;arch 14, 1934). 



9351 



The Bine Eagle, a r;.esi,:;n ^jatented by the United States Governraent, 
was iiivAsd to er.vlc,yei'G v;ho coopirr-ted in t/ie pre?;ident's Heeraployment 
prorran. By its display" those of the .mllic who v/ero in s:>Tnpathy '»-ith 
the President's progrcin could tell where to huy. Absence of the Slue 
Eagle told the same ou.blic whorh to boycott. Since signing the 
President's Ileer.iployraent Agreeiuent was voluntary - except fur the 
pressure of -DU-blic opinion - so'.ne ^rdge was necesi-^^ry. Since also 
the public could not be kept currently educated to the gro^-'in^^ niuaber 
of industries placed under approved Codes aiid in order to a.void bring- 
ing meinbers of coded industries under the di^plessiire of the buying 
public the n-ivilege of disjlaying the Blue La"':le was iimicdiptoly 
extended to e:riployers who were coui 'lyin,;; with the provisions of an 
approved code. This is at least a plnusible explanation of the anaTioly 
of rwardinp an employer a badee of honor for doing what the law says 
he jiust do under oenslty of fine. 

The Blue Earle Insignia, tool-: tv/o foriis. One was a placard 
12'xl6' to be displayed in the -tore or ulant of an employer. This 
later evolved into the Cnre 'Blo.e Ea:~le, T]\c other was a label used 
for the most i^art in the neec.le in.:,u:'; tries where each dress, hat, 
suit, coat, .lechtie or other article of apjfa-el v;/es required to bear 
the label oi approved cesign. 

There is no doubt that the Blue Ea^le in both placard and label 
iorms Jiad a tremendous f. rawing f.'o --er throupi.out 1933. The label 
continued to i.e an effective in::;ti" j.ient for obtaining compliance in 
the i;arment industries uo to the end. This wes not true of the placard. 

The effectiveness of the olacsrd in the be,;;inirinj was due to a 
very general enthusiasm and a genuine spirit of cooperation on the 
part of employers as well as employees and of these same individuals 
and their families tiu-ned consumers. This enthxxsiasm reqiiired 
sti;;iula.tion, v;hich it received. The fervor could not be, or, at 
least was not, prolonged indefinitely. The leriod of indoctrination 
was too short to edi-icate the in^ ividual tc the point ?here he Y/ould 
consciously ask Idmr'.elf if the Blue Bagle were displayed before he 
would make a purchase. Nevertheless, the iiisignia was effective 
long after the first burst of enthusiasm had su.bsided. The removal 
of the Brue Eagle with ?ttcndant publicity fixed the name of the 
violator's estahlishment in the ijiinds of many who refused to 
pa-tronize an ad.judj'-^ed non-con ..li-cr.. .This fonn of sanction v/as more 
effective in the di ':.tributive tr? cles then in raanufac taring. 

The orocedure for rcioving a Blue Ea'^le contc;,iplated (a) 'oatient 
efforts on the part of tlie fielu "taff or Code Authority to obtain 
an adjustment as described in precerin.; chaijters; (b) lurther efforts 
by Compliance Eivision headciuarters, exceot in T'.n' sual cases, to 
obtain comjliajicc by means of the "last cljance" letter; and (c) a 
hearing by a three-member Con-Tliance Board composed of a reoresentative 
of labor, a representative of imhistry and an im./f'rtial c],iairman. 
Even in tiie event of a findin-;- of violation by tl^e Board the respondent 
was still .-liven an opportimity to adjust the violation by signing 
a certificate of future compliance (*) ant' malcing restitution of back 

(*) For typicpl certificate of com.iliance see appendices. 
9861 



-124r- 

The lar.c^e deportment stores and chain stores coO:;erated by requiring 
rnercliandise to bear laoels and the Retail Tr.=ide Code mace it a viola- 
tion to purcliare, sell or exchan--e unlsbelled -garments, "/here labels 
were required by the ivir'nufc-cturing: Code. (*) 

The net result was an effective instni.mentality of comDliance. 
The le^al questions rai'^-ed by renuirin- the use of labels are many 
and cannot be dealt ™ith here. It ''.'as inevitable that the administra- 
tion of complirnce by an agency -'ithin the industry vould lend to 
arbitrary acts in some instances. ('*'*') 

The procedure for wit}iholding or susoendin-; label?, was laid down 
in Administrative Order T.o. x-3. {*■■■*) Code authorities or a~encies 
set up ''oy t}ieiU --.'ere cmpov.'ered to refuse labels to industr^y members 
foiuid by tiiem to be in violation of the coce. A report of the 
suspension vas to be sent to the Comoliance Division together vith a 
transcript of che hearing accorded the respondent v/itnin one day. 
3y an amencanent to Acaninistrative Order X-3, inadvertently or other- 
wise, the time limit set on 1- Del code autiiorities for suunitting 
the record of a case for revic.'/ to the Compli.;nce Division was omitted.. 
(¥=f^¥) This ave rif:e to c'bxi;es w;:icn led to the est-blisl'iment of a 
Label Heview Officer in 'Ser Yorlc City, the center of the garment in- 
dustries. This officer resorted to the Compliance Division. (^=^**=«=) 
A more jrecise orocedare for handling label si'.s )ensions was set forth 
in Admiinistr.^tive Order I'o. X135, {>ff-f^*=f) enC. the time limit on 
submittin", ca-es for review to the Co:!nliajjce Division v/as reestablished. 

Briefly, cases of ;raspension of labels or ref-isal to issue labels 
in the first instance Isy the Code Authority were subject to prompt 
review by the Label lievie'^' Officer and the Coi.Mliance Division aJid 
were given jreierential treatment to insure an early hearing. The 
subject of auiiinistration of laoel ^rovisions of codes is more 
adequately treated in Dean G. Ed"'ard' s re 'ort to the Chief of the 
Compliance Division, (*^-H^f **) 



(*) Code for Retail Trade, Article IX. Section 2. 

{'>'*) See Coat and Suit Code History. 

{''■■'''^) Jan. 17, 19.34. 

(=^=^**) Acj.iinistr-tive Orcer X-33 (iiiay 28, 1934). 

(**''-■'*) Com iliance Division Office .:emo. :;o. PA (Aug. 8, 193'-) 
Administrative Order X133. 

(''■*'^=^**) Teoru-ary 25, 1935. 

[*■*'^^^***) Jujie 2C, 19o.T. - incor^)or;;ted in tlie appendices hereto. 



9861 



Section 5 - National Labor Board. Cases. In addition to the routine 
manner of removin^j NilA. insi-nip there wps- fi -soecial procedure in 
connection with so-called "Va" cases, (*) the adininistration of which 
was intrusted to the National Laoor Board and its successor, the 
National Labor Relations Board. The Executive Order confirming the 
previously apoointed National Labor 3o=rd made it- '"findings" 
( prestunable both as to lav.- and facts) bindin-; on all other a.dininis- 
trative agencies of the -government. (**) When, therefore, the 
National Labor Bc^i-d found an emoloyor in viol-"tion of the collective 
ba.r iiaining or related clause, there v/oula seeu to be an automatic 
finding of code violation because the statute required every code 
or agreement under the act to contain the collective bargaining 
guarantee. The penalty for code violation was loss of the Blue 
Eagle. The administration of the Bliie Eagle v/as a function of NRA. 

Did this make NEA a rubber stara/. for carrying out the findings 
of the National Labor Board? In practice it c.id not. A certain 
degree of adrainistrr tive latitud.e v;as acknoi"ledged to rest in NRA 
as a result of conferences betv/een rej..resentatives of NFA. and the 
NLB. In most cases NRA acted favorably on the request of the Labor 
Board. (*=^*) Bu.t in other cases it did rtot comDlj' with the Board's 
request, as in the case of Colt's Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing 
Company (perhaps because the company is oatentee of the Browning 
machine gun, standard eqiiiroment of the United States military Services) 
and the San Francisco Call-Bulletin (where the President later 
affirmed the final jurisdiction of the Special Labor Board for the 
Newspaper Code) in the 'case, (i"^--=*) which was tantaiBount to saying 
the Labor Board was in error in attenioting to haiidle the case. In 
the two cases last mentioned as well as in other ca;-;es NEA made 
decisions on disputed questions of la^w and policy. 

The situation was not satisfactory to either FRA or the NLRB. 
It created Administrative difficulties, jeve rise to embarassing 
situations and caiised delays. Many so-called "7a" cases received 
v^id.e publicity due to the prominence of the respondents and to the 
fact that the courts were prone to nule against ¥PA in such cases. 
NRA took away the Blue Eagle and also took the blame. On the other 
hand, the Labor Board was not always given the cooperation it 
desired. 

The histrry of the ;relationship betv/een the NRA and the Labor 
Board indicated the advisability of a separation of the so-called 
"7a" provision from other code orovisions. 



(*) A misnomer, as Section 7a of FIRA made mandatory the inclusion 

of hour arid v/age provisionr-; and. the prohibition of child labor 
as well as guaranteein'; the right of collective baxgaining, etc. 

(**) Executive Order 6612-A (Febnary 23, 19S4). 

(*¥¥) 2ge files of Harriman hosiery Co., Ilarriman, Tenn, ; Budd Mfg. Co., 
Philaael jhia.; Weirton Steel Co. , Weirton, W. Va. 

(*'"'**) President Roosevelt's letter of January 22, 1955 to Francis 

Biddle, Chairmpji, National La.bor Relations Board, I^ILRB release 
#261. 

9861 



-126- 

Sec tion 4 - The Hetional. Compjiance Board aiid Its Successor s. The 
Nationel Compliance Board was establisned by Office Order 40 (Octo'bcr 26, 
1933). It consisted of the National Comolif^nce Director, une member of 
the Industrial Advisory Board (aopointed by the Chairman of that board/ 
and one member of the Labor Advisory -^oard (aooointed by the Chairman 
of that board). Permanent advisers to the National Compliance Board 
were assi,:<ned by the Legal Division of the Research and Planning 
Division. The Board was provided with a secretary and necessary 
assistants. 

The duties of the National Compliance Board were, upon reference 
of comjlriiits from the Comolirnce Division, to undertake further 
sttem-ts a.t adjustment, recorai-.iend exceptions, remove the Blue Jip.r;le, 
or reco.maend reference to the Federal Trade Commission or the Attorney 
General for a;opro jriate action. 

The Board also a-ssumed the dti.tics formerly perfoniied by the 
PRA Policy Board, namely, the interpretation of PRA, the ?;ranting of 
exceptions from PRA and the reco;i-iiaenc.ction of suostitute oaragraphs 
of the PlJi. to the Administrator, PRA exceotions were oassed on by 
a subcommittee of the 3oerd cji'oor.ed of the Labor and the Industry 
members. The Board held its first aeetins October 30, 1933. Wniiara 
H. Davis was appointed Chairman and rational Compliance Director on 
November 2-1, 1933 (*) and served tmtil the Board was abolished. Prior 
to his a.ppointnent , meetin-^s were conducted by various actin'^ Chairman. 
Three assistant National Directors •"ore appointed.. 

The Board met almost every day and as time '/;ent on its delibera- 
tions called for virtually the full time of its members. It devoted 
most of its time to hearing cases charging violation of approved 
codes and of the PRA, determining policies to be 'pursued by the 
Compliance Division, interpreting the WA and passing on exceptions 
from the PRA. It also considered several cases involving strikes and 
the right of employees to ba.r-^ain collectively thro^ogh representatives 
of their own choosing. (^=f) 

Pressure of work led to the separation of the duties of Chair- 
man of the National Com-jliance Board from those of Chief of the 
Compliance Division (*'f*) both of which had been held ^oy the National 
Compliance Director. Arthur J. Aj tmcyer was made Chief of the 
Com.pliance Division. 



(*) Office Order 45. 

('"'*) See file of Ford ; otor Company, Chester, Pennsylvania. 

(*='*) Office Oraer 85, (April 12, 193<0. 



9861 



-127- 

Without v/f rnin-j; the 'rptional Goraoliance Lor-rd T»es pbolished 
I-ay 21, 1954. (*) The Chsirnirn of the ^orrd 'vso under attsck hy the 
Philadel Vnia rtecord fnd other jcc-irbor joui-nflr. occrise of hie 
handlin"': of the Paidd ti^'nuf octL^riiv; Company case, a ca'se v;hich never 
should have been referred to the National Complirnce 'Board inasmuch 
as it involved a ciuestion of collective bpr;^aininj and the iiational 
Labor -Joard was in operation at the time. It is also generally 
sup )0sed that the actions of and state;'-ieiit? emanatin- from another 
board - the Hevieiv Advisory (■^■arro-"') Board - gave the A-dviinistrator 
a distaste for boards in :^eneral. 

The abolition of the Iviational Comi}liance 3oard and the transfer 
of all its fiuictions to the Chief of the Compliance Division created 
a jroblem. The ad.;iinistrative duties of the Chief of the Oompliance 
Livision called for his full time and overtime. It vr-s physically 
impossible for him to sit all day hearin;; cases and perform his other 
duties. Dr. Altneyer protested the abolition of the Compliance Board 
(**) but the Doard '-/as not revived. 

The situation was met by the Chief of the bomplifnce Division 
requesting and autJiorizin-j; the members of the abolished I'ational 
Compliance Board to serve as counselors until further notice. The 
counselors comprised the Advi'-.ory Council, Com ili'nce Division J^A 
and served under that name from i.iay 23, 195'.' to J-'one 8, 1934. It 
was the same board v.-ith the same duties, except' that responsibility 
for decisions v;as placed on the Chief of the .Coraijliance Division 
whose other duties prevented him from being, more than an occasional 
visitor v/it'ii the Advisory Council during its deliberations. 

The name of the Ai-.vi.jory Coiincil was changed to Compliance 
Council, NBA on June 8, 19Sd because of confusion resulting from 
;^he existence of several ot;ier -•^dvisar;" 'uo-ards. 

The burden of '"ork placed on the Comjliance Council gradually 
increased until it became apparent th.;. t one council cou.ld not handle 
all the cases arisin."^ everywhere t'nroLi'liout the country. The choice 
was betv;een creating additional Knels or c.ecentrelizing the work 
into re-ional councils. The latter coiirse finally was talcen with the 
establishment of the Regional Office system. (=>==f*) 



(^) Office On'.er 90. 

i'^*) Ilemo.'A. J. Altmeyer to the Administrator, April 22, 1934. 

i'^'^'^) Pield Letter 190 (l^ecember 3'-, 1934). 



9861 



-128- 

Washington had become a "bottle-neck. Delays were occurring in ■ 
the Analysis Branch, in the Deputy Administrators' offices, in the 
Code Legal Advisors' offices, in v/aiting for a place on the docket. 
These cumulative delays had a serio\i.sly detrimental effect on compliance 
morale. Besides, considerahle hrrdship was involved in "bringing 
respondents to Wr.shington from a distance at their own expense. 

Eerly in 1935, not all on the same late, Regional Compliance 
Councils were set up in Boston, 'f^evi York, V^ashington, Atlcnta, 
Cleveland, Chicago, Omaha, Dallas and San Frpncisco, 

3^he F.egional Compliance Councils v/ere counterparts of the original 
Compliance Coimcil. Lach consisted of an impartial chairman, a labor 
member and an industry member. A lav.yer experienced in litigating 
cases was chosen as chairman because the J^egional Councils had the 
responsibili vy in fact but not in theory of referring cases to the 
United States Attorney for prosecution and it was the desire of the 
Administration to prosecute only strong coses. There was also a 
legal g.dvisor who performed in the regions bhe deities formerly 
performed by the code legal advisors in Washington. The secretariat 
comprised a secretary, an analyst, reporters and necessary clerical 
assistants. 

Section 5 - IMotice of Hearings. Wnen the National Compliance Board, 
Compliance Council or Regional Compliance Council decided to hear 
a case, telegraphic notice of that fact was sent the respondent. He 
was informed that the State Director charged him with violation of a 
given article of a given code by paying less than the minimum wage, 
or whatever the allegation might be. l^o exact statement of the 
charge was made in the notice until very la.te in the development 
of compliance orocedure.. {*) Normally a respondent was given at 
least a week's notice; more, if he was located at a distant point. 
There were no regulations on this ooint. 

The respondent viras invited to attend the hearing. No agency 
in HR.A could issue a subpoena. 

The Litigation Division raised questions as to the adequacy of 
the notice both as to form and as to the time given the respondent 
to prepare for a, hearing and also as to tiie reasonableness of re- 
quiring the respondent to travel considerable distances to attend a 
hearing even after regional couaicils were set up. 

The only instance of a hearing away from the seat of the Board 
or Council is fiirnished by the National Compliance Board's hearing 
on the Ford Motor Company case held in Chester, Pennsylvania. It 
was necessary because the striking employees could hot get to 
Washington. The responaent did not appear. 

Postponements were allowed for catise. 

Until the establishment of the regional system, no statement of 
the procedure fnllrwed in the conduct of a hearing was given a respon- 
dent before the hearing itself. 



(♦) Field letter 213 (May 2, 1935) 
9861 



-129- 

Section 6 - Prncedvre at ^e^rin -:s. T]ie jrocedure pt hearings before the 
Nationpl Com olipncH lo-rcr rnc. t.:e Co": /l.irnce Coi'.ncils wan informal. 
The ineetin^'is vere not o 'en tr tiie 'uiic. -rior ti v ecentr.rlization 
the COL e le ',T-1 .^I'viflor .v..'. f re'r.^.entl^- tie Iie)ct; Acu:uni!-~, trr-tor of the 
code were prerent. The responaent :;.i iit be scco-.rvniec' by counsel or 
represented b^ covnsel wit'iort hi;iv elf j* p errin;. 

The Chaimirn, Pavinj informer, hiaiself of f.:e n.-^tu.re of the cnse 
from the analysis of the eviaence prep&red in the Analysis ~ranch or 
from the brief pre jf red b;; the coo.e legal rdvisor, informed the respond- 
ent of the nature of the violation with '■■•uch he was charged, A verbal 
explanation of the proccdcre was i;iven. It.iwas explained that the 
identity of the complrdnant could ixot be revealed. If necessary the 
case a;2"3iiist the respondent v^ras presented by the code le^'^al advisor or 
later, by counsel to the Hegional '-'ouncil, who, in a sense, stood in 
the shoes of the prosecuting attorney. Opportunity was rfiorded the 
respondent or his counsel to rebut the evidence of violrjtion insofar 
as that evidence could be made specific v/it/iou.t revealing the identity of 
the complainant. T/Yl:iere a violation was evident the respondent was asked 
to adjust the violation by sig-ning a certificate of future comoliance 
and, in labor cases, making restitution of wages due. The rcsicndent 
was told that failure tr adjust would result in the loss of his right 
to display NRA insignia and possibly in prosecution in the courts. 

In cases of oisputed facts the respondent was informed that the 
Board would t&lce the matter -oncer ad.visement end that he would be in- 
formed of the decision. Usually .deci sions were made promptly after 
consultation a^nong board members and counsel after the respondent had 
withdravm so that the latter could be infonned of it v?ithin an hour 
or at most a day after the hearing. A small proportion of the cases 
did not lend themselves to this prompt handling. 

If a respondent failed to attend the hearin- a decision was 
made on the record. 

The secretary of the board took notes of salient points which 
were incoroorated in tlie .uinutes of the meeting, bu.t with one or two 
exceptions, verbatim reports were not made. 

The procedure oriefly outlined aerein v/as that followed by the 
Fational Com jliance Boardi anc. the Compliance CoLincil. Variations 
occurred, of course, after the nine Eegional Coujicils wore created 
depending largely \ipon the chairman and other board members. ?or 
example, one co-oncil for a time discussed the evidence and reached 
its decisions in the presence of respondents. The Compliance 
Division, however, reviewed copies of the m.inutes of all Reg-ional 
Co-uncils which had a tend.ency to bring about Uiiifonnity of procedure 
and adherence to precedents set by the National Compliance Board 
and the Compliance '-'ouncil. 



9861 



-130 

A manual of procedure v/as prepared for the Regional Councils on 
December 10, 1934. This was later modified -aid re-issued attached to 
a field Letter. (*) 

Upon a finding of violation oy the iMational Compliance Board or 
later "by the Compliance Council or by p Regional Compliance Council 
and failure on the part of the respondent to adjust the violation, the 
Board or Council recorded its decision in its minutes and instructed 
the secretar.y to inform the respondent to cease displaying the Blue 
-Eagle and to surrender to the local postmaster all KTRA insignia in his 
possession. 

Office Order 40 gave the national Compliance Board authority to 
"remove the Blue Eagle". Office order 79 (**) provided "The (National 
Compliance) Board will ma^:e final decisions on the issue of the right to 
displaj'' the Blue Eagle." l^Ievertheless all telegrcons removing Blue 
Eagles 7.-ere sent over th':' name of the Adrainistrator or later of the 
National Recovery Board. (***) 

At this stage it was customary t^^ refei' the case to the Litigation 
Division nith the recommendation that legal action "be t.alcen. 

Wliile the above described procedure ma'y be sn.id to have worked 
exceedingly well in a practical way so far as it went, due in large part 
to the high calibre of the Board ;.iembers, it he.d its obvious defects. A 
respondent in the us-'oal case had to come a considerable distance to ob- 
tain a hearing. He was not and in the nature of things co-old not be 
confronted ''oy his real accuser and cross-examination of witnesses in the 
ordinary case did not exist. :\fter the abolition of the National Com- 
pliance Board the Hearing was before a body that had only advisory 
powers. In the long run respondent was deprived of pro-oerty rights — 
the right to display the insignia or use labels — by an official who 
had not heard the facts. For ourooses of app^^al there was no transcript 
of the hearing. 

Section 7 - Evide nce, llo strict rules of evidence were apiolied 
by the Nationa.l Complirnce Board or its successors. Previous chapters 
have described the evolution of the material i.i a file from merelj'- the 
complainant's statement plus sundry correspondence with the respondent 
down to reoorts of field adjusters, and, in some instances, records of 
hearings before State Adjust^ient Boards. 

The difficulty of .obtaining affidavits from the complainant or 
his fellow emplojrees pervades the compliance picture from beginning to 
end. The Litigation Division always complained that the cases received 
from the Compliance Division were inadequately prepared and that an in- 
ordinate burden was placed on its trial lawyers in obatining evidence 



(*) Field Letter 199 (February 13, 1935) 
(**) March 25, 1934. 
(***) lTo\ie:.',v,l'.'^ stipriS 
9861 



-131- 

that would stand up in court. The vierr of the Compliance Division was 
that it vras impossible v/ith the staff provided to prepare each case as 
though it were going to "be prosecuted. The statistics seem to sup-oort 
the position of the Compliance Division. A total of 155,102 code cases were 
docketed by the state ImRA offices. Lnly 1435 cases were referred to 
the Litigation Division. A better picture is obtained by eliminating 
cases where no violation was found upon investi_~ation and those pend- 
ing at the time of the Schechter decision. Accordingly, there were 
89,872 valid complaints handled to a conclusion b7 the Compliance Di- 
vision and its field offices. Only 1435, or considerably less than 2fo 
were referred for litigation. Had the Compliance Division sought to 
implement each file with the evidence desired by the Litigation Divi- 
sion in the other 88,437 cases, or even in the 7136 cases ultimately 
docketed by the Hational Compliance Board and the Compliance CouncilR, 
it would have needed a vastly larger field staff and an enormous amoimt 
of work would have been performed that would have served no good pur- 
pose. 

In the end, however, the Litigation Division set the standard that 
a complaint file must contain a,t least one affidavit of a person who 
had knowledge of the facts in a violation before it would accept a case 
from the Compliance Division. (*) Unquestionably sworn statements in 
the record of a case were desirable to support a finding of violation 
for Blue Eagle removal on the one hand aiad for a finding of no viola- 
tion and dropping the case on the other. TThat vip.z possible of attain- 
ment -.'ith a field staff, which at its height included fewer than 400 
adjusters, is another matter. 

Section 8 - Appeals . No specific procedure was outlined for 
taking appeals from the decision of the National Compliance Board or 
its successors xintil July 16, 1934, (**) and no encouragement was given 
respondents to appeal such decisions either before or after that date. 

It was tacitly admitted by the Board that appeals could be taken 
to the Administrator, and a few such were heard "oir him. In at least 
one instance the Administrator reversed the Board's decision without 
consultation with the Board. (***) 

After the abolition of the National Compliance Board (****) and 
the transfer of its functions to the Chief of the Compliance Division, 
an appeal from the Compliance Council's decision naturally was talcen 
to the Chief of the Compliance Division. Theoretically it was his 
decision anyhow, although he did not have the benefit of the arguments 
and evidence adduced at the he0.ring .before the council. Presuraablj'' 
an appeal would still lie from a decision of the Chief of the Compli- 
ance Division to the Administrator. 



(*) Supra, chapter V, section 5, "Technique of investiga,tion. " 

(**) Office Order 105. 

(***) Loft, Inc., New Yor-^-;, J. Y. 

(****) Office Order 90 (Lay 21, 1934). 



9861 



-13 2-. 

Some time between. June 1 and June.. 1 4, _j 19 34 (*) the. position of 
Assistant Administrator for Field 4diainistration. was created. The 
Chief of the Compliance 'Division reported 'directly to him. This 
interposed another ' steTJ in the possiliilities of aispealing decisions. 

More or less at a tangent to thi's hierarchy of executives who 
co-old entertain appeals from decisions of what had now come to "be The 
Compliance ■ Council was the Industrial A peals Eoard. It was created 
July 16, 1934 (**) and was authorized among other things to: 

"Hear and recommend to the Administrator the proper 
disposition of : Complaints coneerning aIRA or any agency 
or hranch thereof, especially those alleging that code 
provisions are designed to or tend to elim.inate, oppress 
or discriminate against snail enterprises, or to favor 
monopolistic tendencies; and complaints of non-compliance." 

The Industrial Appeals Board was its o'-ra judge of what appeals it 
would accept. In the ten months of its operation it took jurisdiction 
in 84 cases appealed from the decision of tl:e 'Compliance. Councils, 15 
of which were pending hearings on liaj'' 27, 1935. 

The position of Director of Compliance ,aiid Enforcement was created 
Uovemher 21, 1934. (***) So far as appeals are concerned it was merely 
a change in title from that of Assistajit Administrator for Field Admin- 
istration. 

In spite of these possihle steps of appeal, no orderlj'' worka'ble 
procedure was ever created. 

Section 9 - Development of ggialysis and Review procedure hefore 
hearings - Analysis Branch . Preliminarj'- review and examination of 
unadjusted complaints filed with the Compliance Division was the only 
feasihle orocedure "by which alleged code violations could he prepared 
for ilP-A compliance and enforcement machinery. A numher of important 
developments in the code adniiTi strati on jprograriiwof IJRA strongly empha- 
sized the need for such procedure. 

The number of complaints tc be o.cted upon "oy the Compliance Divi- 
sion increased to such a,n extent that it .was inciombent upon HRA to ■ 
provide for an adequate method for handling of such cases. Man^;- of the 
alleged violations had been investigated b3'- IffiA State Offices or Idj 
Industrial Agencies v/hile others were original complaints from employees 
or other interested persons which were unsupoorted ^oj substantial evit- . 
dence. 

There was also an apparent need for n close coordin.ation of 
effort of the several agencies responsible for oroper code administra- 
tion, namel^r, the Compliance Division, the National Compliance Board, 



(*) Office Order 92 (\mdated) 
(**) Office Order 105. 
(***) Office Memorandum 309. 

9861 



-133- 

the Legal Division and the Inchistrj Divisions. 

By the heginning of the spring of 1934 it had "become apparent 
that tne sxiccess of the codes must depend in the final analysis on 
the methods of their administration and enf orceinent. This realization 
took the form of an attempt hy an Office Order to reorganize the 
compliance and eioforcement machinery of IIRA along more efficient lines. (*) 

The Order outlined in Section I the responsihility of Deputies in 
code administration "by stating, "from the date of this Order, each 
Deputy will he responsible to his Division Mrainistrator for prompt ac- 
tion on complaints of violation of the codes assigned to him". 

Section II of this Order provided th'^.t the field offices of IIRA 
under the supervision of the Tield Branch of the Compliance Division, 
were organized as a service for all industries whose code authority 
organization was inadequate to carry out the field contact work neces- 
sary for proper code administration. There ^ras also included in this 
section of the Order an important statement of policy in the following 
words, "However, it is not intended that the Co;.ipliance Division is 
to underta,ke the administration of all codes for compliance and enforce- 
ment. This remains the responsihilit^^ of the Code Authority, the Ad- 
ministration I.Iemher, and. the Deputy and Division Administrator for each 
code. " 

The general policy on procedure to he followed in the hajidling 
of compliance and enforcement matters '^oy ilRA was outlined in Section 
III of this Order. Its purpose wa.s clearly stated as follows: "In 
order to insure prompt, efficient and coordinated action on the part 
of Code Authorities and their agents, the Compliance Division and its 
agents. Administration Memhers, Depxity and Division Administrators, 
and the Legal and Litigation Divisioiis". Section III defined the part 
which ea.ch Division was to tace in the compliance and enforcement 
activities on transcripts and unadjusted complaints suhmitted to 
Washington. 

A specific procedure for handling such cases was outlined in 
Section III A of Office Order 79. All transcripts of cases in litiga- 
tion, unadjusted cases and original complaints involving alleged vio- 
lations of IIRA codes and agreements v-ere to oe routed to the Control 
Section of the Compliance Division. The r esjoonsihilit-f of sorting and 
acknowledging the complaints and of returning to their Bources all 
ohviously erroneous or misdirected complaints was placed in that 
Section. It was also the duty of this Section to jacket and control 
all properly investigated cases and to follow up the case until proiser 
disposition had heen made of the complaint. 

Briefly, the Analysis Branch was charged with the duty of anal- 
yzing all transcripts and complaints referred to it "by the Control 
Section and of raalcing appropriate disposition thereof as outlined in 



(*) Office Order 79 (March 26, 1934) 



9861 



-134- 

detail in the folloi'Ting paragraph. 

A general reorganization of the Compliance Division was affected 
on April 12, 1934, "in order to coordinate its work Trith the Industrjr 
Division, the Legal Division and tiie National Complicaice Board in the 
new prograjn for increased enforcement". (*) 

By tills Order an Analysis Brfinch \7r,s estahlished, the chief 
thereof reporting directly to the Chief of the Compliance Division. 
The personnel formerly assigned to the Lahor and Trade Practice 
Branches (**) of the Compliance Division was ahsor'oed hy the Analysis 
Branch, with W. H. Galvin apoointed as Chief of the Branch. (***) 

The functions and cuties cf the Anal:i''sis Branch were "broadly out- 
lined in Section III A of Office Order 79 (****) hut the actual work 
and procedure of the Branch -jas governed oy experience and changing 
conditions at the direction of the Cliief of the ComplLnnce Division. 

Due to the enorraous voluj.ie of complaints cf alleged code viola- 
tions and the resultant load placed upon the compliance and enforcement 
machinery of WA, it became imperative that all complaints he thorough- 
ly examined "by the Analj'"sis Branch for the purpose of separating the 
"wheat from the chaff". In performing this fujaction it may be said 
that the Analysis Branch constituted in fact a primary deliberative 
agency. 

The decision as to the appropriate disposition of a complaint of 
alleged code violation was based on a number of pertinent factors. 
Primarily, it was necessary to determine if the facts submitted in 
substantiation of the complaint actually constituted a clear case of 
violation. The facts in each case were carefull"/ considered by the 
analyst and if it developed t'.iat the evidence was not adequate in every 
respect, the file was either reti,irned to its source with e:^^planations 
as to its deficiency or the necessary additional evidence and informa- 
tion v:as requested and the file was placed in suspense pending the 
receipt of such information. 

i'or purposes of coordinating ad:;lnistrativ>= action it was often 
necessary to check with the Industry'" Division concerned as to the pre- 
sent status or contemplated revision of the code, or in some instances. 



(*) Office Order 85 (April 12, 193:4). "P.eorganisation of the Com- 
pliance Division". 

(**) Compli-nce Division Keraorandum #1 (I'ovsmber 29,1933), provided 

in Section I, "The Blue Eagle Branch is analgnjnated and consoli- 
dated into the Labor, Tra,de Practice and Administrative Branches 
of the Compliance Division " 

(***) Office Memorandum 180 (April 12, 1934) 

(****)Note p.loS supra. 



9861 



"135- 

to secure ai official interpretation of sone c^isputcd 'orovision of the 
code. 

If the file contained sufficient evidence to warrant action liy 
the Adriini strati on, the analyst )repared a "brief digest of the -oerti- 
nent facts ef the case for the information of all nho had occasion to 
handle or review the complaint - the Chief of the Comr)liaiice Division, 
the memhers of the Com.pliince Council, the Coiuisel to the Compliance 
Division, the Deputy Administrators pjid Division Ai'lr.iinistrators and the 
Code Lega.1 Advisors. 

The scope and function of the digest prepared hy the Analysis 
Branch was governed hy the followin;'--; statement of policy: 

"as provided in Office order 79; the Analysis Branch of 
the CompliaxLce Division makes an analysis of each un- 
adjusted complaint. The function of this analysis is 
to enahle persons interested in the case jto determine 
pro:ntl3'" the general nature of the issues involveo.. 
The analysis also contains the recomnendation of the 
Coiiplirnce Division to the ITational CorTolirnce Board. 
It is not intended to he a full statement of the issues 
or the evidence in the case a;ad is not sufficient as 
a statement of facts to the ila.tional Coriplia.nce Board". (*) 

Briefly, it was considered necessary to include the following 
poi:its in the di(2;ests of unadjusted conplo-ints preparec, h^/ the Analysis 
Branch: (1) pertinent information relative to tlie respondent pnc" the 
complainant, (2) code involved and the provisions alleged to have heen 
violated, (S) extent and nature of evidence offered in suhstantiation 
of th= complaint, (4) period covered hy the violation, (5) relevant 
infor;iation a,s to the respondent's attitude, (5) "brief, history of the 
attempts at axljustment "before the cv-.se vias ;:ent to TJashin-ton, (7) per- 
tinent inf or;.iation relative to interstate commerce, (3) evidence as to 
display h;- respondent of Blue Eagle or Code Eagle, (9) histor^r of res- 
■ocndent's compliance with PEA "before code v/as effective and respondent's 
'"'articipatinn in "business financed "by TederaJ- funds, (li^O recommended 
finding of fact wn.rranted ty the evidence in the file, (11) specific 
recomjienda-tions for action — removal of Blue Sagle , reference to en- 
forcement agencies of Crovernment, or dropping of case. (**) 

Adi-.inistrative polic3'- was an im/oortant factor in determination 
of recommended complipjice action on complaints Of code violations. Oiit- 
st?aiding examples of groui^s of cases a.ffected hy policy veve those 
involving the local service trades and industries designa^ted in 



(*) Excerpt from, memorandum of Blac'rvell Smith, to all Assistant 
Counsels (ADril 25, 1934). 

(**) Uenorpridum of instructions to Analysts fv^n 17. M. Calvin, Chief, 
iiialysis Branch (V.ay 11, 1934) 



9861 



-13C- 

Adninistrative Orders (*) as Deinr erempt fron the trade practice pro- 
visions of Guch an-mved codes. In lihp -nrjiner, ?dj-.inistra.tivp. policy 
on conplirnce action against snail estaJliclinent s served as a tasis 
for deternininfr the appropriate recommendation for disposition of a 
substantial percenta;;e of conplaints Eu'bi'itted to the CoiTOlimice 
Division. 

The forn and contents of the di£;ests prepared li-y the Anal^^sis 
Brazich did not chaiign to any apprecia'ole extent during; the life of the 
Branch. Hov.'ever, it \!e.s found advisahle to nal-:e minor deviations fron 
and additions to the scope of the digests in respect to the source of 
the conplaint, suspension of la^bels and recorij-iendation of the Compli- 
ance Division to the Coiiiplirnce Council. 

Due to the need for expeditious handling, all transcripts of ca,ses 
in litigation and unadjusted complaints involving the suspension of I'ffiA 
labels hy Code Authorities '-ere ^i'^'en, whenever possilDle, tnenty-four 
hour service "by the Control Section rnd Aiialysis Branch. 

The efforts of the Analysis Branch at obtaining adjustment of 
investigated complaints forwarded to tlie Oo.roli.ance Division oy State 
Offices raid Code Authorities xiere confiiied to a so-called "last chpjice" 
letter sent "by registered nail to the respondent. This letter advised 
the respondent that a specific comple,int, supported by evidence, had 
"been filed against him ajid requested that ajiy ejrplanation of his posi- 
tion as to the charges he furnished to the Compliance Division \7ithin a 
definite tine limit. A suspe;ise shert 'dth 0. definite recall date cor- 
responding to the li::it specified in the "last cha:ace" letter was then 
placed on the file and compliance action on the case was withheld pend- 
ing the receipt of information from the respondent or until the period 
of suspense had elapsed. 

This effort to in(.>..ice volujitary corpliance without the necessity 
of further action by the Administration proved effective in about 25fo 
of all cases sent to tie Coirjli.ance Division. (**) 

The complete file, "ith the cigest anc' the recommendations of the 
Compliance Division as to the disposition of the case fron a. general 
standpoint of conplirnce, was tr.^jismitted through the Control Section 
to the Assistant Counsel assigned tc the code involved. The complaint 
was reviewed by the Assistant Counsel and presented to the Deputy Ad- 
ministrator with recommendations on its legal phases p,nd from the stand- 
point of legal policj'-. The Deputy Ao.'iinistrator then a.dded his recom.- 
mendations, from an a.dminl strati ve stpjidpoint, to the record and the 
case was ready for presentation to the national Compliance Board (la.ter 



(*) Administrative Orders 37 (Uay 28, 1934), X-5n (June 15, 1934), 

X-54 (June 28, 1S34; all issued ^^'J-i' suajit to Executive Order £723, 
(Liay 26, 1934-) 

(**) Supra, p. 119 



9861 



-137- 



the llr.tional Compli.irice CoLincil) li^^ the Assistant Counsel at tne call of 
the Secretary of the Board. 

'For the purpose of coordinatiiv- adnini strati ve action, copies of 
the digests of code complaints aiid recomriendations vere sent to the 
Liti-;ation Division (on transcript cases onl;r) , Control Section, Coordi- 
nating Branch, and to inenhers of the Advisor- Conrlttee (Conpliance 
Coujicil) . 

An inportoiit developnent in Analysis Branch procedure and f-unctions 
was hrou/iht ahout "by the increasing ajno-ojit of correspondence '.-rith the 
various State ilEA Offices and Code Authorities. The major portion of 
this v/orl; dealt idth ujiadjusted cases i,7hich had "been subi'iitted to the 
Conplir^'iCe Division for farther action, although in the last si:-: nonths 
of the existence of the Anal3''sis Branch, a large volur.ie of correspon- 
dence dealing nith ;'^eneral corplirnce prohleins i7as routed to the 
Analysis Branch for handling. Si^ilarl5^ inquiries fron respondents, 
couplainsnts and other interested persons relative to unadjusted cases 
filed ^■ith the- Conpliance Division i.7ere ans^vered "by the Anal'/sis Branch. 

The Contributions Section of the Analj-'sis Branch nas estaolished 
by Office :.;enorandu:a 305, ilovenher 12, 1934. Its poners and duties 
were "to receive conplaints nade in accordance rdth J..d;iinistrative 
Order iTo. X-36 by Code Authorities against members of trade or ino.ustry 
for non-TDajnnent of contributions; to receive protests by members of 
trade o/ industr;^ on th^ su.bject of contributions; to achnonledge and 
comi^lete the record of such conplaints aiid protests; a;id to carry out 
the^-cutine handling thereof in accordance r/ith established policies". ( ) 

Because of time limitations it is not possible to enter into a 
discussion of the yrork of the Contributions Section in this History. 
The complex nature of its fiuictions is indicated by the provisions of 
Adj:iinistrative Order X-36 and b- the fact 158,620 complaints of non- 
payment of assessment and 1,954 protests nere handled by it. 

In order to increase the effectiveness of corrolia:ice adr.inistra- 
tion and enforcement aiid to relieve the burden placed upon tne compli- 
ance and enforcement machinery in Washington, the Chief of the Compli- 
ance Division on December 0. 1934 was aiithorized to taJ.:e all steps 
necessary to establish and adrndnister a system of Regional Administra- 
tion. (**) 

Actin- u-oon the authorit- conferred in the above mentioned 
memorandu:::^ the Chief of the Complioaice Division divided the United 
Stat<^s into nine regions vrita offices located at Boston, he'.7 lorl: City, 



(*) Office LiemorandiuQ 30o (_Iovenber 12, 1934). 
(**) llemo. from Compliance and Enforcement Director 



9851 



-138- 

".7aGhiii{;:ti a, Atlpjitg., Cleveland, Cliicago, Gnslaa, Dalles aiul San 
Francisco. Eegiono.l Directors, res^jonsi-ole to the Cliief of the Conpli- 
ance Division, v:ere apoointed anc delegrted certain i^o'rers and functions 
?7ithin their respective Ker;ion£; on behalf of ITSA. (*) 



The decentrali^r 
sitated the transfer 
Control Section o:^ tl' 
Offices havinj jurisd 
otvious reasons, iinad 
national Co-vplifuice C 
adjust: lent and other 
sion in TTashington, 
files r;ere forv;arded 



tion nf coriplirncR ano. enforcement activity neces- 
of -unadjusted cases previously cocheted by the 
e eorapli uice Division to the vo.rious rLe:2;ional 
iction ovf-r the adjustnent ^-f tlie co'iplaints. Tor 
j acted conplaints rhich had been hes,rd before the 
ou'icil, cases -'hich '"ere in an adva:iced stage of 
selected eposes -..'ere 'leld in the Conpli.ijice Divi- 
The remainder of the docheted cases njid temporary 
to the a"Oi")ro'Drir.te T.e -ional Offices for action. 



in piialysis of the uiia,dju£:>tfid complaints docketed by the Control 
Section of the CoriiDliance Division vhich '.7ere referred to the Regional 
Offices for the period beginnin,f; December 15, 1334, shors a total of 
1,403 such cases sent to the field. Of this number, the ajialysis 
indicates that 1,155 of the corrolaints rere adjusted by the Regional 
Offices rnd the remaining 243 cases vrere rjonding a,s of I.lay 11 ,1935. (**'•) 
In fairness to the records of the Regional. Offices, it shoiild be point- 
ed out at this time tha,t the 243 unadj-Jisted referred cases represented 
complaints-, the majority of \7hich the Compliance Division had previous- 
ly been imsuccessfi?.! in adjusting over a long period of time. 

Summarizing briefl-'-, it Cfin be stated that the decentralization of 
compliance administration raid enforcement v/as m.arhed improvement over 
the old -method of h.andling -unadjusted complaints. The avera^ge length 
of time necessary to bring about adjiastment of complaints or to initiate 
action on unadjusted causes T.'as s-abstpntially reduced, and although it is 
impossible to jiidge accurately the increa.sed efficiencj' due to the 
closer conta.cts with local conditions and litigation proceedings, it is 
submitted tha.t the decentra.li2a,ticn of compliajice activity wc 
best interests of sOiond administra>,tion. 



(*) Liemorand'ur,! from L. J. llartiji. Chief, Compli, -.nee D^. vision to 
Regional Directors (Janua.ry 1, 1955). 
In 1~RA Studies Special .Exhibits Fori: Uaterials Vo. 85 

(**) A table sho'-dng statistical data on docketed cases referred to 
Regional Offices is included in the ap'oendices. 



9861 



Section 10 - Reference of c -" sos for Litigr.tion . Fev; cases nere referred 
for litigation, prior to tlie estr lislinent of the State Compliance Offices 
in Jan-ac,r3'-, 1934. This ^7as d-ue If r ;ely to the fact that it had "been foimd 
possible to adjust most cases by adjninistrrtive procedure. Then too, the 
Compliance a.gencies rere inadequately prepared to develop proper cases 
for reference for litigation* •(*) 

The State Compliance offices nere established in January, 1934 but 
there yic.s no imraedia,te change of procedure in referring cases for litiga- 
tion. However, Bulletin llo. 7, trhich ^7as issued shortly after the a,ppoint- 
ment of the State Compliance Directors, contained a statement of slightly 
stronger policy in regard to referring cases to the enforcement a'^encies 
of the G-overnment. This provision of Bulletin To. 7 is quoted as follovrs: 

"Tlie s^'stem outlined t;?- this Hanual is designed to insure the 
speed;'' elimination, "by adjustment, of such noncompliance as is 
due to misunderstanding, and the prompt prosecution of all cases 
of nilful noncompliance. Tliron-gh the various industrial ad- 
justment agencies and the State Directors, a.ll persons against 
whom complaint have been lodged v.'ill be given ara^^le opportunity 
to demonstrate their desire to cooperate and to malce restitution 
for any viola.tion due to mi sunder stancUng or ignorance. But 
cases of nilfijl violation, will al\7ays be forwarded proraptl],^ to 
Washington for reference to the enforcement agencies of the 
G-overnment. 



H (**) 



Soom after the incerjtion of the State office system, the volume of 
unadjusted complaints referred to the Compliance Division began to 
steadil;'' increase. This increase in volume was parti]'- due to the fact 
that manjr industrial adjustment pgencies l:.ad started to functionl 'This 
v/as particularly trae with r;_gard to the Cleaning and D],^eing Code Au.th- 
ority ^..'hich was sending in a. constant stream of causes involving alleged 
violations of the minimum price provisions of the code for that industry. 
In fact, complaints involving this code constituted a majority of the 
cases received b:^ the Co loliance Boarc! during that ^oeriod. 

Out of the large number of comv;laints referred to the Compliance 
Division, onlj- a fe-; i.rere considered adequate for reference to the 
enforcement agencies. In a Ipr^e n-.imber of cases the complaint in- 
volved a questionable or unenforceable provisions of the code. 

The outstanding problem, ho\fever, was tha.t of securing cases pro- 
perl;'; -orepared for litigation purposes. Host of the cases received b]"- 
the Compliance Division were deficient as to evidence of violations, 
etc. The main cause for the high percentage of poorl^ prepared cases 
can be laid to the fact that the field offices were understa,ff ed and 
untrained in the t;;rpe of investigation necessar]''. 



(*) Refer to Chapter lY, suora. 
(**) Bulletin To. 7, p. 7. 

93S1 



-140- 

There was another outstanding fault r-itli tlie procedure of vhich the 
field agencies rere in no \7a'- responsiole. It nas "beeri. -oointed out 
elsev/here that a,ll "onadjusted com;:-laintc vere referred to Washington and 
that in the ovent the Corripllance Division was unable to effect adjust- 
/ments in such cases tliey were suhmitte-l to tlie rational Compliance Board 

■for apToroToriate action. Since complrints could nnl^' be referred for 
litigrtion at the recomnendation of the Board, a "bottleneck" was 
created which was responsible for a great pjnount of delay in the pro- 
gress of cases. In viev/ of the large vol-'Jine of unadjusted complaints 
it was a physical irax'Ossibility for the Borrd to handle all of them 
promptl;^. 

These delays ancT lack of action from "..rshington were bringing in 
many protests from the compliance agencies. There was a tremendous 
amount of -pressure being brought upon the compliance agencies b]'' both 
complainants and competitors. These agencies in turn ''ere insisting 
tha.t they be given stronger stipport from Washington by having their 
cases acted upon promptly. Industrial Adjustment Agencies were espe- 
ciall;'- critical of the procedure in "ia.shington and in m8A7 instances 
■were c".emanding that their cases be imr.ediately referred for litigation. 

It was aprjarent that the program would be seriously retarded 
unless these many shortcomings in the procedure vrere eliminated or 
greatl;^ improved. Consequently, there neve a n-'omber of important devel- 
bpmentS;^ made in the procedure beginning the latter part of Llarch, 1934. 

Under date of March 26, 1934 a, Litiga,tion Division was established 
to perform the following functions: 

"(a) Coordinate all IIHA litigation. 

(b) Examine and review transcripts of all ca.scs turned over to 
the courts. 

(c) 'In the name of the Department of Justice prepare and carry 

through litigated cases. 

(d) ITarnish infoi-mation at any time on the e::act status of 
litigation on any point. 

(e) Present cases to the national Compliance 2oa.rd for its 
reconmenda.tions on oolic/ and cisnosition. 

(f) Maintain close liaison v.lth the Department of Justice, the 
National Co;n"iliance Board, the Industr'"' Divisions (through 
assistant ccmsel). , the Compliance Division and the Office 
of the Eirst Assista.nt Acninirtrrtor, to insiire coordination 
of compliance anr enforcement efforts." (*> 

There had been a decided need for specialised attorneys capable of 
preparing cases as well a.s assisting the United States District attornej^s 
in presenting thera in the Courts. These v;ere the principal duties 
assigned to the Litigation Division. 



(*) Office Ordc-r To. 74, (i.Iarch 36, 19:54). 



9851 



-141- 

Sliortl^' after the estctli siunent 03" the Liti::,ation Division there 
v/as another important development in the procedure. Sv Administrative 
Order To. 14 dated April 6, 15o4, Bulletin To. 7 v/ar, .-imended as follov^s: 

"J. Reference To The District Attorne:' By The State Director. If 
at any time the State Director is convinced that the facts relative 
to a complaint concTa^ivelj^ establish a violation v/hich the re*-- 
spondent shor's no dis"30sition to correct or adjust, the State Direc- 
tor may immediately refer the entire record in the case to the 
appropriate District Attorney of the United States for action 
instead of to the national Compliance Director as provided in 
paragraph D. (Pa^^e 17 above). 'iTaenever a crse is so referred, under 
this paragraph, the State Director \7ill inforn the respondent of 
such reference and will immediately traiisrait r. complete transcript, 
in triplicate, of the entire record of the case to the Control 
Section of the Compliance Division of 1".R.A." 

The sBJme Administrative Order aixthorized Code autnorities to refer 
ca.ses to District Attorneys through the appropriate State Director. . 

On April 8, 19-34, the Administrator in e::pla;ining the above action 
made the follov.'iiig official sta.tement: 

"Heretofore, it has been necessar-^, in order to coordinate the 
Administrations litigation and to avoid the institution of vealz -, 
or ixnfounded causes, to have all cases referred to Washington for 
recommendations before proceedings nere started: Uoti, ho\".'ever, 
the field agencies of iHA and of the Code Aut'-iorities ha.ve had 
s'officient actual experience to justify siraplication of the 
procedure. " (*) 

This nen procedure v;as to be effective in ten ca.-'-s c»fter the issu- 
ance of the amendments to Bulletin lo. 7. l^eanr^hile, hovrcver. State 
Directors and Code Authorities vere requested to send immeciateljr to 
the Control Section, Com-jliance Division all cases suitable for liti- 
gation. 

The cases sent in to Washington in conToliance "ith these requests 
'.7ere cocketed by the Control Section and referred to the Litigation 
Division for further actioii. 

On April 9, 1334 the Attorney General directed a letter to United 
Sta.tes Attorneys in vhich he authorized them to accept cases submitted 
by State Directors and, if in their judgment such action T/as warranted, 
to institute legal proceedings in the form of a .suit in equity, or 
both. (**) 

The primary rea.son for this change in procedure vja.s to e:rpeo.ite en- 
forcement proceedings by lessening the "bottle nech" in TJashington. 

(*) Release IJo. 4293, April C, 1934. 

(**) Copy of letter from Homer S. &L"ijnnings, Attoriiev General to U.S. 

District Attorney's, (April 9, 1934). Attached to Zield Letter 103. 

9861 



"14?- 

There nere other oenefits, hor^ever, to be derived from these che^nges* 
The privilege of doclir!- dii-cctlv rith District Attorneys afforded the 
State Directors their first real opportiojiitj- to learn the requisites 
of a properly preioored case. ' It also gave them a better inright to 
ITLI' s legal status. 

A letter dated April 27, 1934, from Chief, Field BrsJich, Compliance 
Division contained the first concrete inf ornation given the Str.te Direc- 
tors relative to the preparation of cases for enforcement proceedings. 
In this letter the State Directors \7ere requested to neigh the following 
considerations before referring a case to the District Attorney: 

"1: Fiiether the violation is clear and flagrant. 

2: Tiether the case can be effectively proved. 

3: The nata--e of the coiicern v^hich is alleged to be violating, 
whether it is large or small. Proceedings against largo 
concerns r/ill be 'more effective than th-ose f^gainst small 
enterprises. 

4: IThether the activities of the concern are in or affect inter- 
state commerce in a manner "./hich can be clearly proved. 

5: The effect of the violation upon general conditions in the 
t:' -ide or indu-str;^. 

6: Thi general feeling of the corajnunity in regard to: 
(c, ) The Recover)'- Program 

(b) The Code "orovisions involved 

(c) The particular concern complained against 

7: ^nether removal of U?A Emblems alone nould have the desired 
effect. 

8: Proper preparation of the cases referred to the District 
Attorneys is half the battle. If possible, the record re- 
ferred to t]ie District Attorney should contain the necessary 
documentary evidence to establish violations. In an;'' event 
it should contain a careful description of the violations 
and a complete statement Pf the evi6.ence which is ava.ilable 
or rhich rill be available to establish violations." (*) 

At the same time it v;as e:cplained that it r;as not essential that' each 
of these considerations be resolved in favor to prosecute, but that they 
vere im.porr.rnt considerations "'hich should effect the decision. Further, 
the State Directors \7ere urged to call umon their State Adjustment Boards 
for recommendr.tions in doubtful cases. \'*"*') 

In Hay, 1934 the State Directors ^;ere furnished r/ith a form to follov; 
in ;.ire-oarir.g the digest to be submitted ^Tith all cases referred to Dis- 
trict Attoi-neys. The digest coiitained the following pertinent information: 

(1) Facts as to respondent: (Size pf establishment, fina.ncial con-<- 
diiion, nature of business, etc.) 

(2) Fccts as to violation: (Code provisions involved, nature of 
evidence, extent of violations, effect of viola,tion on corape- 

t_;. :ors, etc. 



(*) Letter "rom Chief, Field Branch, Compliance Division to State Direc- 
tors (i. oril 27, 1934) 
(**) Ibid, p. 2. 



9861 



i 



-143- 

(o) Historj^ of case: (Attempts at adjustment, attitude of respon- 
dent, seriousness of cr.se, etc.) 

(4) Evidence of interstate commerce. 

(5) Information r,s to c.isnlav of Blue Sa5le.(*) 

Administrative Order X-14 contained the provision that rfaen the 
State Director referred a car;e to the United States Attorney, a complete 
transcript, in triplicate, should he immediatel,7 transmitted to the 
Control Section of the Compliance Divi cion. ^ **) 

TJhen transcripts nere received! in the Control Section they nere 
jacketed, given a control nurnher ^,nc routed to the Analysis Branch of 
the Compliance Division. The procedure by that hrrnch ho.s "been describ- 
ed in the preceding section. 

Soon after the Str^te Directors v;ere ar'.tho ?ri ?; e d to refer cases direct 
to District Attorne^'^s, the Compliance Division in reviewing the trans- 
cripts observed that some of the offices v/ere not using proper care in 
malring such references. In one instance, for an example, a case involv- 
ing an alleged violation of the minim-?aia price provision of the Cleaning 
a,nd Dyeing code uas referred by a Strte Director to the District Attorney. 
At that time no minimum -rice had been established for the loca,l area 
nhich included the, city v/here the respondent nas located. Obviousl]'' such 
a case coiild not be successfully litigated. There \;ere other instances 
of a similar nature, but as the program progressed the State Offices 
improved greatly in this regard. 

There v/ere a largo niimber of cases referred to District Attorneys 
'".'hich involved small or sub-marginal operators. In the letter fron 
Chief, Field Branch, Compliance Division to all State Directors, dated 
A'oril 27, 1934, (previously quoted in this section) it was pointed out 
that enforcement "oroceedings against large establishments v,'ould be more 
effective thaii those against small enterprises. A clear policy on this 
point, hovjevar, ^'as never deter^nined and it v;p,s responsible for much 
criticism directed at the Adrninistrc' tor^s enforcement program. 

After the State Directorr; were authorized to submit cases direct 
to District Attorne-'s the^'e continued to be a large number of cases re- 
ferred to T'E.&hington. ilont of these rore submitted to the Compliance 
Division for further atte'rots a.t adjiistment or removal of KRA insignia. 

From the beginning there v.'as an a^pa'^ent misunderstanding bet^'een 
the vai'ioug Division of IPA as to the 'oart each v;as to play in the 
coraplianr'e r.r.d t:..'fovce-i' -it program. As a res^^.lt there was a lack of 
cooperation b3t .'oen these Di"visions, "■.■.'hich at times proved detriraenfal 
to the proc;.Iur3^ Tor instance, the -Compriance .and- Litigation Divi- 
sions had diff Lcult.,- in arriving r.t an understanding as to whether the 
latter should settle or adjust cases i/ithout the approval of the Com- 
pliance Coimcilo lu was alleged th; t the Litigation Division effected 
ac'justmonts in sor'.e few cases that c id not conform '..'ith the pdjustraent 
•procedure of the Co;.ipli" ' oe Division. Conferences '."ere held between 

(*) See Field Letter 111 (May 17, '1334). 

(**) The procedure for handlin;^ tranactipts '"as set forth in O'^fice 
Order 79 (Uarch 25, 1934) . 

9851 



1 



-144- 

officials of the t v7o divirlons, 'but it is doubtftil if a clear luider- 
ptarc.ing nas ever reached. (*) 

T}.iere uere similar mi s-'onder standings betv/een the Compliaiice Divi- 
sion and the Industry Divisions t-hich tended to reouce the effective- 
ness of the proded\ire. l.piiy of these, no^ever, v/ere ironed out in the 
Ir.ter stages of the progrrjn. 

In attempts to solve the prohlems jur.t described tvo important 
steps nere talcen in late 1934. Since there uas a lack of cooperation 
Liet\.'een the va,rious divisions of '"RL as vrell as "betAveen ITRA and the 
enforcement agencies of the government, it v,'a.s obvious that there was 
need for someone in position to coordinate these va,rious functions. 
As a result, on h'ovember 21, 19G4 the Office of Director of Field Ad- 
ministrction and Enforcement vas estaolisheO. for this purpose. (**) 

In order to increase the effectiveness of compliance administra- 
tion and enforcement a system of Hegional Offices vas established in 
December, 1934. Fine Ilegional Offices '-ore set up at strategic points 
throughotit the countr"^. A regional Director was placed in charge of 
ea,ch office v/ith e-uthority to refer cases to the United Stp.tes Attornej'- 
through the Litigation Attorney assigned to the Hegion. 

After ITebru.ar"'- 2, 1954 State Directors were not permitted to refer 
cases direct to District Attorneys. Instead they vrere required to sub- 
mit them through the Regional Director and Litigo.tion Attorne;'- for the 
Hegion. Since Field Letter I'o. 196 stater- very clearly the new proce- 
dure for the reference of cases to United States Attorne"-s, it is ouoted 
in full :(***) 

"1. Heference of cases to United States Attorneys ; 

A. 3y State Directors. 

It is desirable to have \madjusted complaints heard by the pLegional 
Compliance Couiicil so that if possible the violation can be adjusted 
without court action.' It in also desirable before a case is referred 
to a United States Attorney for prosecution that the respondent's 
Blue Eagle be removed if he is displa'd-ng one aJid such action necessi- 
tates a hearing before the Ilegional Council. Similarl'-, in those 
cases in which the respondent does not displa;^ the Blue Eagle, but 

(*) See Memorandum of meeting held in Ilr. L'cIInight's office, April 3, 

1934 - also liemo. from A. C-. i ."cICni -Jit to Blaclcell Smith dated 
AT5ril 33, 1934. In 1"SA Studies S^Decial E::hibits Uorl: Material 

(**) Office Memo. To. 309 (rovcmbcr 21, 1934). 
(***) Field Letter 196 (February 2, 1935). 



9861 



4H- 



r-here removal o."^ the ri.~Iit to f.imla7 it and consequent puDlicity 
uould be effective, a hearia^r "o-^- the Co'Lincil '.7ould also "be desir- 
able. The normal practice v,dll therefore be a, reference of unad- 
justed complaints to the Regiona,l Office for a hearing b3'- the 
Regional Cornplio-.ce Coimcil. 

In special co.r-,ez ".lere a''ju3tnent ir, impossible or unse,ti sfactor^'' 
and rrhere immediate court action ir, necessary, the State Director 
should refer the case a.nd the file to the He^'ional Office '".'ith a 
request that it be transmitted to the Litigation Counsel for the 
P.egion for reference by him to the ap'oropriate T/nited States 
Attorney. The State Director sho^ild also stcte v/hether the respon- 
dent displa^/s the Blue Eagle and 'jhetJier e hearing and deprivation 
of the right to displa;^'" the Blue lirgle before reference to the 
Litigation Counsel is desirable. The Litigation Counsel uill e::- 
ajnine the file and if he and the Hegiona,l Director decide that 
court action prior to r, Com-:li;'.nce Co"ancil hearing is advisa.ble, 
he will refer the case to the appropriate United States Attorney 
if it is read3- Tor prosecution. The Litigation Counsel nill re- 
tain or prepare sufficient evidence in the form of copies of 
affidavits on uhich to base a hearing by the liogional Compliance 
Co-ancil and rsiaoval of the Blue Eagle in the event tha.t such a 
hearing is held. He trill also advise the State Director of the 
reference to the United States Attorney. The above instriactions 
to the Litigation Counsel are supplementary,'- to those previously 
issued by the Litigation Divirion.and are not intended to super- 
sede the latter. 

B. By ?.egiona.l Directors. 

Regional Directors vdll contact the United States Attornej'- througM 
the Litigation Co-'unsel for the respective Region, Unadjusted com- 
plaints in V7hich court action is thought desirable by the Regional 
Director rhould be referred by him to the Litigation Counsel \7ith 
a request that he, after proper!'..;-^ pre;-iaring the case, refer it to 
a United States Attorne-"-. i'orinally, a case should not be so 
referred until after a hearing by the Regional ComplipJice Co'oncil 
especially uhen the respondent ci splays the Blue 2agle. In co.se 
of iinresolved disagreement bet'veen the Regional Director anc" the 
Litigation Counsel as to v^hether a p<- rticular case should be re- 
ferred to a United State Attorney, the Regional Director should 
report the matter to the Chief of the Compliance Division. 

C. Publicity. 

It is important that innedirte pnd c.-.refully prepared publicity be 
given tc the reference of ctses to United States Attornej^s and to 
favorable co\-.rt c^ecisions and court action. The Litigation Covaisel 
acting with the Regional Director and the various State Directors 
will prepare aiid give publicity- to a reference of a case to the 
United States Attorney and to subsequent fa.vorable fecisions and 
court action after obta.ining the approval of the United States 
Attorney is officially responsible for the prosecution of the vio- 
lation, it is necessary to secure his approval of publicit]'' con— 

9861 



-146- 

cerning that asnect of the case. Copies of all such putlicit;- 
should "be sent h-r Hegional Directors. aid State Directors to the 
Coordinating Branch, Compliance Division." 

The last quoted instructions remained in effect until the close of 
corapliance r.ctivities. 

Sectio:- 11 - Cent rihut ion S ection . A Contribution Section nas set up 
in the Compliance Division, Jime 4, 1934, (*) to handle "all matters 
pertaining to code contributions by members of industr7 to Code Autho- 
rities". J. E. Peebles :7as appointed Chief of the Section. 

The povfers and duties of the Section v/ere more particularly'- de* - 
ssribeo. in Office iiemorand-iajn I'o. 305 (I'ovember 12, 1934) as follo'.Ts: 

"To receive complaints made in accordance ijith Ac'jninistra.tive 
Order To. X-3o by Code Authorities against mer.ibers of trade or 
industrjA for non-paj'^ment of contributions; to receive protests 
by members of trade or industry'- on the subject of contributions; 
to acknoT/ledge and complete the record of such complaints and 
protests; and to carr;" out the routine handling thereof in 
a.ccordance vith er.tablislied polic;''. " 

Tlie same memorandum authorized the Section "to call upon the appropriate 
Industry" Division T7henever questions under a particular code" arose. 

Authority for mahing findings of default on code contributions r;as 
giver, to the Section in a,n unnuj-nuered special memorandum dr.ted l"ovember 
16, 1934, from "J. A. Ho.rrima.n, Aojninistrativo Officer of the rational 
Industrial Recovery Board to L. J. ilartin. Chief of the Compliance 
Division. 

"■Jhene-'er there is a finding b;^ the Chief of the Compliance Divi- 
sion or by the Contribution Section thereof that px^r person is in 
defa.ult in his obligation (as defined in Executive Order I"^o. 6678, 
April 14, 1934, and Acjninistrative Orc'er X-36, Hay 25, 1934) to 
ma.he pe^^HTient of a contribution to a Code Ai-ithorit^^, the Chief of 
the Compliance Division may notify such person that he has been 
deprived of the right to displa]'- a-iv/- Blue Eagle or other l'.?..A. 
Insignia or to obtain or use ^'.R.A. labels, and my notif3'' the 
appropriate Code Authorit",' to v'itlihold the issuance of labels to 
such person. The Chief of the Compliance Division, vithout hearing 
or recomraendation 'h-'r the Compliance CoUiicil, may thereafter give 
notice of the restoration of any such right to such person and may 
give notice to the appropriate Code Authority to resume the 
issuance of labels to such a person." 

The jurisdiction of the Contribution Section over alleged viola- 
tions of mandator3'" contribxition provisions of codes V3.s e::clu5ive, 
?ield Offices of I'.Z.A. \7ere instructed to forward all complaints of 

this nature \7ithout docheting to the Contribution Section. (**) 

(*) Unnumbered Conpliance Division Liemorandum, co-vj in ITiA Studies 

Special Exhibits '-'ork i.iaterial t'/^So 
(**) Field Letter 164, September 21, 1934, pi; Field Letter 169, 
October, 19, 1934. 

9861 



n 



Office Ller.iorr.nd-ara IIo. 340, I'e laiary 27, 1934, created a Code Ccn- 
tri'btition Board consistir^g of three members, the Chairman representing 
the Code Administration Director, one member representing the Assistant 
to the Acijninistrative Officer in char^-e of 3uds^ets and Bases of Assess- 
ment and third member rejpresenting the Chief of the Compliance Division. 
The functions of the Board were described as follows: 

"Tlie Code Contributions iioard. \7ill be responsible for all ajid v/ill 
direct the dispositions of protests ag'ainst pa;^ment of code con- 
tributions and all Certificates of ITon-payment of Code Contribu- 
tions filed in a.ccordance vith Adninistrative Order Ho. X-36; 
e::cept that the authorit7 to deprive industr;'/- members of their 
privileges either to display or use the Blue lUarcle or I'.R.A. Labels, 
or to participate in uork financed in \"'hole or in part by federal 
funds, or in appropriate cases of restoring?: such privileges, T.'ill 
continue under the Compliance p.nd Enforcement Director." 

In effect, ho".7ever, curtailment of discretion, f-'onctions and re--- 
sponsibilities of the Section ve.s relr^^ively sm.all. Tiie Board authorized 
the Section to continue to reject certificates from Code Authorities 
TThich failed to meet aominictrative standards s.nd cor^f erred blaiilcet 
authority to handle specified type of protests. Approved codes provided 
for Cede Authorities entrusted with the duty of acijnini storing the codes, 
subject to su.pervision of "J.H.A. The Code Authorities required monejr 
in order to function. At first it v,'as ta:ien for granted that Code 
Aiithority funds would bo obtained from voluntary contributions. B3'- the 
Sisring of 1934, hov/ever, it became obvious that the idea of industrial 
self-government brought about through Code Authoritj/ Administration of 
Codes was in dajiger of paral'-sis because the expected voluntary con- 
tributions were not forthcoming in many industries. 

Confronted with this desperate rea.lity resort Mas had to mandatory 
contribution provisions in many codes. (*) 

The procedure to be followed by Code Authorities in demanding con- 
tributions from in6.ustr-- members and in registering formal complaint 
was outlined in Administrative Order i^o. X-3S. 

The Contribution Section divided its \'ork between a Certifica,te 
Unit and a Protest Unit, the former to examine the validity of com- 
plaints of non-payment and the latter to prepare protests for the con- 
sideration of the Code Contribution Board and to carr;^ out the decisions 
of the Board. A fuller report on the operations of the Section, pre- 
pared bjr J. E. Peebles, is in the records of the ITield Division. It may 
be well, hov/ever, to point out here the erctent of the activitj'- of the 
Section. Tliere were 153,520 certificates of non-payment received; 
130,514 demands irpon industry;' to pa^' contributions made by II. R. A} 726 
Slue Eagles removed and 56 restored on recommendatioi: of the Section. 



(*) Executive Order iio. 6573, April 14, 1934: At'jninistrative Order 
To. X-20, April 14, 1934; Administrative Order I'o. X-3o, i.Iay 25, 
1934. 



9051 



-148- 



ITindings of violation of mandatory contribution provisions nere 
supplied tli3 Government Contracts Division in 118 ceases a,nd Code 
Authorities nere authorized to institute civil suits in 310 cases. 

There was probably less legal basis for the mandator3^ contribu- 
tion provision than for anj^ other activity of il.R.A. 



9851 



-149- 

pa:it III 
ouTSTAiDirc- ?2o:3Le::s or ii:: coipliahci: division 

Chajster VII - The lletlioc. of Hr.uclin:^; Comrlaints 

Section 1 - The cor.iolaints jrT.is of 'oroceciure - Ir.oor violations . It 
rras the function of the Cor.rolirnce Division to rf; linifster the provisions 
of the vrriotLs coc.es, '-hers there -cro no r;';encies of inoustrial self- 
governnent hsx. 'been aLithorir;ec'. to perforr.! thi?; tasl:. The procecxire and 
mechanicr. adopted for the oerfoKiance o" this phase of code adiinistra,- 
tion, more coLiraonij' hno""n a.s "compliance", have "jeen discussed in detail 
in previous chapters. 

The ultimate purpose of conpli".nce ••orl: \far; the ohtaining of the 
hif^hest pos-^ilDle def;ree of uniforr.i ohF.orvance of the codes. In the ac- 
conplisiinent of this ai?! there -ere t-'o :iajor aspcctc, nanel^r, the 
actual investiiC-ation ani" a.djurtnent of coii-.lainti: , discussed above under 
Chapter V, and the ca-roful and thorov. :h education of nenhors of industry, 
lahor anc" the puhlic so o.s to invest tlio result-:- of the rdjustnent phase 
'.T'ith r. ch?rp.cter of per:i?nence. It is a/jparent thrt "joth aspects -rere 
essential, althouf;h of the t";o, educ-^tion ivr.s the :iore iraportant. 

It '-as necesrrr-' that co:iplirnce '.)e uniforM, not onl-' in particular 
industries, hut a ion ; the entire national jusiness structure, hecruse 
the code pro^Trn had hcen oased on the r' Tilation of the "hole of cou- 
inerce and industrp. . It --as necessrry to avoid inerr.ities , to f,u.rrd 
against non-con :lirncq in one serjient spreading to other lines of in- 
dustry rnd caasin'"; ?, fjeneral hrealido- n of the co).;"jliance structure. The 
magnitude of this trsl: can scarcely he appreciated hy a nere peinisal of 
figures, out sone indication is given ''Dy the fact that the codification 
of industry'' included E'^h cooes ano supplements covering 2,^00,000 en- 
ployers, (*) 

To acconplish this :"i-;T,ntic goal tne Conpliance Division i-'as es- 
tahlished on Octoher 2b, 1933* (**) The conpliance program ■-'Ps hrsed 
on a procedure '-.diich depended on the filing of complaints "by employees, 
competitors and other interested persons pres':Uiahly having Imo'T-ledge of 
violations. (***) Out of this rd-iinistr- tive method of approach many 
prohlens arose. Since the -'hole conpliance jrogrr-i ':as prima^ril" a 
fielc prol'len, this disciissior. "ill r-.la.te chiefly to that pha.se. 

Section 2 - Disrc'vant" ':es o f and ohjections to the com'ola.ints system. 

The most potent evidence nf the ina^eruac:" of the co'ipla.ints plan of 
procedure to acconrlish the co noliance ;:oal is the history of develop- 
ment of conplia,nce procedure in the fie].c' off ices. (****) 



(*) See ::->te -.>,■ Q su;^--. 

(**) Office Orc.er 1^0. 

(***) See Chapter V, "Compliance rrocedure in Pield Offices", p. 75i 

supra. 
(****) Cha.pter V, "Conpliance Procedure In Tielc Offices", P. 75, 
supra. 

9SSl 



-150- 

In {general, the short com inir- of the co.-in?Laints syGteu nay he seeii hy its 
conparison \-ith the pui-jose of co-i:.liance. "^o obtain the hifhest possi- 
hle derrer of pcnnanent, -aniforn con"or-iity r'ith tl;e 1dm. 

By its very nature, tlie cor.plr.intr, r.yste:i of procer'.ure nas spasnoc'.ic, 
o.ependin;;- as it did on the repo::ti:T: of indivifua.l enployers. This nat- 
urally resulted in c ertn.in ir.erv.itier, anon .uenhevs of the sr-iie indus- 
tries. The oojection of recpondents '■a':- counon that their conpetitors 
nerc viola-tiiy i-ith iinunity v;hile they ■7e:"e ua.ce to suffer a competitive 
disadvantc/'e hy coMplyin.j 'Tith the la-,'. Adc'ed to this itera of apparent 
discrinina.tion axionc competitore .'jas the fret that in many cases viola- 
tions '^ent unreported for Ion;; periods of tine.(*-) Consequently, when 
complaint 'var- finally made the wa 'e restitutions r/ere often excessively 
hurdensone. , True, the er.iplcye;'s "ere char jed "ith the knowledge of their 
ohligations and "ith the duty of ohservinr; the la'-f. As a ;oractical mat- 
ter, ho'"'ever, except in af;;ravated anc", delihcra.te cases of violation, 
the requirement of lar£:e restitution ■■■c.:-, a:ot to caf.se resentment a^nd to 
defeat the efforts to win the confidence, ;;.;ood "ill and support of in- 
dustr-T-. 

Moreover, the use of the ccnr.Orints s;''Gte'i had a. profound effect 
on the aoility of the Complirnce Divirion to f\^lfill its function of 
obtaining code cornliance. ("'* ) Th'^ inof "icicncies resulting from 
the use of this systen of procedure made themselves felt partially in. 
the relp.tively high trr^vol e:-.:ense, -/hich "Ts out of pro'oortion to the 
concrete results obtained. It "as not "ancop.ion for a Field Adjuster to 
he sent a hundred miles to adjurt r half do-en co:ipla.ints involving a 
total of 25 or 30 employees. This -.'ac particularly true in less indus- 
trialized states ^'hern tlie res'^ondents might he located in small, 
scattered communities. It also held generally ti'^o.c, ho":ever, oven in 
larger to"ns and cities. T; hing as a hj^npothetical situation a short 
trip of t'lO hundred miles, the truth of the above assertion will he 
seen. Such a trip "ould usur.lly be '\c(.e bv private ."utomobile and 
would cons-ome t"o full r.a;-s. 7\'; -'orlcing ap roriimatel;/ a, t -elve-hour 
ca-'- or more a fast, errperienced Tield Ar'Justrr might investigate and 
close not to exceed tcncrses in the t"o days. The trr.vel e:rpenso for 
such atrip v.'ould be ;;10.00, por diem allowance "ot\ld be $10.00, and 
the Adjuster's sala.r", fiL^urod ;t tlii.-: minimur.i grade, v'ould amount to 
$10.00, a total of $30.00. Proba.bly fift;- [Percent or less of these 
cases would be a.djustec in fxill with restitution. 

It must be understood that tne e.-wpenEes have "oeen figTired at e:n 
absolute minimuj:i a.no the resiiltr hrve ^ocen esti".atcd on the assumption 
the most fr.vorahle conditions "ere present. Actuall;/, six to eight 
cases would be a good a-verrge production for such a trip. It is impos- 
sible to estimate the £vera-e wage rci'.titution per crse since the fig- 
ixre of Qllg.lS (*^ *) for all cases han dled by the field offices was 
(*) Tor complaints strtistics on periods of violrtions, see table 
S'lV, appendices. 
^**> See tables VII and VIII, appendices, "hich disclose that the 
arith;.ietical a.^.'erapie of time consu-ied in hajidling a case was 7 ^'^-7^ 
from docketing to first action, and UU.6 CP.-/9. till closing, a total 
of 'jltG days. 

(***) Derived from ana.lysis of State Office cases. See TaJole X, 
appendices. 

9S6l 



• ■ ^151- 

increrser "b" rmun'ber o'" ■u.nusurll;' l":^;;e .-■"justnents in industries not 
apprecip ly representee in ? "ir jorit;-' o" strtes nor ordincril:' found in 
snaller co;-i:"iunitic3. 

The foresoin.-:: h^piothetical illustrrtion o;: tlie rclr.tivel:' high e::- 
pen£5e of acliinisterinc the codes under r. coiiplaintr, systen is enphasized 
'Then it is re;.ie;.ihered thr.t often co'iplaints 'vcre later received against 
the sr:.ie respondent. This uade it necessary to re-visit the employer 
e:n.C. to retrace the ste":s of investigation and r/djust.ient. (*) 
The ohvious distadvantrges of this procedure rere the repetition of effort 
and conseouent loss of ef'iciency ^nC. the resentnent usually created on 
the part of the respondent at "beir.'- harassed hy couplaint'', . It is true, 
the effect of this disp.dvantr -e on the fficienc"^ of the field offices 
'"•as allayed to so:.ie degree hy the lodif ic^tions of the coirplaints s^'sten 
introducec j;' Tield Letter I25. (**) Ho- -ever, it -'as inherently inpos- 
sihle to so control the inflii:-. of con.clr.ints as to oe o.jle to nap ov.t a 
syster.iatic handling of the coriplianco ;rojle:.is in an industry or locrlit;/. 

]?urthemore, the e::tent of the activities of the field offices ^vas 
controlled hy the voIums of co:.i.:laints filed vinder particular codes. The 
inportr.nce of this ooint is sho-;n hy tne fact thrt out of a total of 
11S,S77 laoor coiT:laints doclicted ",r- all field of Ticfs, 90,001 fell 
under 25 codes rnd their sup :le.ients. (***} rr\irthernore, ■ b5, S70 coii- 
plp-ints "ell under the folio-ring sir. cot es : ((****') 



Code 




■-To. Con" 


laints 


llr.t 


io 


0" 


r Zn jloyees 


in entire 




tra 


de 





: industr:'- 


to Con'olp.ints 










Hi. 5 




i:^ G-roc 


n-^-^T 


13,020 
10,22s 










H1.3 

3'>H.2 

-93.9 
■57. s 




Retail 


ing 


',?77 
',060 








V 








^,321 










37.3 





Hestaurant 

He tail fpod rn 

Retail 

ConstiTLction 

■:!otor Vehicle 

Hotel 

These fi^gures 8,re prina. frcie evidence in tlienselvcs of the inadeeuacy 
of.cover?.ge under the conplaints plvn of procediirc. 

The rhove nentioned disrdvantr 'es "ere d ■ .rf ed in iuportpnce ^o-j 
the fact thrt the strict con;laint-:' plaji failed of a,ccon":lisli]ient of the 
ultimate purpose of conpli-nce ■or... lir.ndlin ■ each conplaint separately, 
"rithoiit a coordinr,ted a,tt:cl: on the con::-liance :.roolens of an industr;' 
or locrlitj'-, it "as inpossihle to follo" rn effective ed\icational pro- 
grr-i. Such r ■•■rogrrn necesrirril^- presupposed a plrnned campaign of dis- 
seminating information and the instr-action of industry as to its ohliga- 
tions under the Ir,". It included convincing e;rolo?''ers of the henefits 



((*■)' See tr.ole V Fa-rt IV appendices. 
(^^■) See supra, -qtj- 63-63 ' 
^***y See ta Ic IZ[, rppenc.ices. 
(*****) Idem. See also tahle IllilX, a.ppondices. These figures on ratio of 
employers to conplrints filed a.re esoccially significa.nt -'lien compared 
\7ith those for Boot rnd Shoe, 123-C, and "or Electrical ha^nufrcturing, 
■ ■UU1.2. The high ratios on Retail cm' Constiuction a.re eirolained hy 
the e::tensive cover-^ -e of the t' 'o co('.es. 

S2Sl 



-152- 

to be derived from compliance and the development oT easy mechanics for 
voluntary conformity to the law, such as the installation and maintenance 
of adequate \ra.ge and hour records. Manifestly, the problem of education 
was too hroad a cne for spasmodic handling -^juidor individual, scattered com- 
plaints, requiring as it did uniformity of ap'oroach and a coordinated and 
intensive pl'-.n of activity. Tiat this aspect of the worl: .i,-,d to ■ic 
neglected i.- a severe indictment of the complaints system, for without 
the education ,f industry permanent compliance was impossible to obtain 
and even present conformity was made very difficult of achievement. 

Likewise, experience showed tl.at the total comoliance -oicturo was 
infinitely involved and complex. It v/as useless to attemot t.ic adjust- 
ment of individual violations without also removing t'.ieir causes, for 
they were t'len sure to recur and perhaps in more aggra.vated form. Tims, 
it was essential to ascertain w/ether the condition of non-compliance 
was due to stron;, competitive pressures or to misconceived labor policies 
on the part of tne employer, etc. here again, the fulfillment of the 
objective required a broad knowled^^e of conditions in the industr}"" or 
locality and an approach, to the whole pr::blem rather than the correction 
of a single violation. 

The objections which have been voiced a.re b/ no means all-inclusive. 
Attempt has been nade here only to mention those whi ell .were fundamental 
disadvantages. These were t.io comv-etitive inequities placed on respon- 
dents, the delay in correcting violations and the consequent oiling up 
of larpe amounts of restitution, tie concentration of efforts on rela- 
tively unimoortant codes, the duplication of effort caused by repeated 
complaints, the increase in administrative ..xoense, and the im;:'ossibility 
of achieving permanent results because of the inability to conduct an edu- 
cational program or to romove the causes of violations and becp.use the 
volume of work could not be controlled and compliance activities system- 
atized. , 

Sect i on 5 - Practical difficulties in use of com.olaints system . In ad- 
dition to the disadvantages already mentioned and indicated in the fore- 
goi\ig secticiis and in Ciapter V, there existed one major practical dif- 
ficaity in t"ie use of the system that is sufficient condemnation in it- 
self of the reliance placed solely on complaints as the basis of pro- 
cedure. Tills was the basic problem of protection of tie complainant's 
identity. (*) 

This problem presented itself iiTiraediately with the use of complaints 
as the basis of procedure. Qij.ite 10t:ically, employees who corapl.ained 
expected not only tliat the violations would be corrected but t"_iat tiey 
would be protected against any measures of retaliation on the part of the • 
respondent. Cn the contrary, however, letters received from comolainants 
and reports from field offices, and even from Local Complaince Boards 
under tie PHA, indicated strongly tliat the filing of a complaint by an 
employee was often followed by discharge or demotion. 

It was realized that, theoretically, sucxi action did not increase 
unem'oloyiaent, because generally spealcing, the vacancies thus created had 
to be filled. Moreover, it is unlikely that the number so dis- 

(*) A total of 352 complaints were docketed by the field offices alleg- 
ing discrimination for filing comolaints. Table XIII, appendices. 
9361 



„] p.3- 

cli?,iY;ec. hac any oropi-ecia^lDle effect on th.e norrucA tn.rnover in the en- 
ployec" Ipoor of the counti*;-. The r?: 1 ,i-o";:lon .-.ros-o fron the fact that 
cnployoes ^-'ere c.eterver'. frcn filin;^ co: '.plaints l)y ;"ca:.' of losint-;: their 
jots, han;'' of those Hio coul.C furni':''i evic".e:ice of vio''.ations -ere 
lorthe to ro -ro, feelin;^- thrt it '■•'; hrttcr to --oi-h for loss thrn r.ini- 
7i"ujn --a'-cs or in e"cess of co■,■^p iioui'r, than to have no ioo at all. 

The io.e' nrs ac-V"ncG'l aiion,'^ enrloyooG th: t the Achiinistration '.''as 
reouestin,: everyone to report violrtio.:. .t, hv.t -rr, c.oinf: nothing,' to 
protect then fron C Ischd'ce. Since con.liance procec''ure '7as hased en- 
tireljr on the conplaints nethod, it •,• r apparent thrt t]";e e::,istnece of 
such an idea in the .lindr. of the '•or'xr'O --OL-fA'. rovxO.':, in " lan;'- flagrant 
viola,tions c^in;; undiscovered. 2}iploye3s rssvjieC. th't -'hen they con- 
plied -ith the C-ovornrient ' s ref-niecit '.rj furnishin^j evidence of violf-tions, 
the Governnent --oulc" reciiirocato hy at Ic-'jt protrctia"; then fron dis- 
char;?,'c. "..lien it "c-s- ••itnessrd thrt einoloj^eos --ere actually hein;" dis- 
char;';ed and that tlie Adiinistra.tion '7: ■^- tDkinc; little or no corrective 
action, they hcfjan to lose confidence in the -hole conpliance pr0;";rrn. 

There 'vere four npin forces ope.v' tin,-^ to doter eroloyees fro!-i fil- 
in-:; conplaints. These '.'oro the fer:.' o^ c iscrijiination, just nentioned, 
the derdire of individairl -."'orhers to er rn hiyher pa.y hy rorkin^j longer 
hoiirs (especia.lly •'-'itii piece'vorhers) , the enployecs' i:':norance of riyhts 
and procer\ire, PxiC. lach of confidence on the pa.rt o:" en;jloyees in the 
¥.?A, including "both distiTist of local officials ant" a yeneral feeling 
of inef fectivenes'-. The lact t- -o -ere -.^rpa'ile of hcin,;; renoved o;- ^du- 
catin': c"'.C. instractin^f-; e'roloyees. The second could have hecn ooviated ^'j 
the nain"'.cnance of thorourh, ade-rur.te ■ ■a;'';e anj'"- hour recorc-s and provi- 
sion for their systematic inspection, ajid also h"'- e- clu-dinfi the enployee 
involve:' fron the rc^titv-tion ■ 'Iiere 'uilty of colli.\Gion -'ith the e-r:loy- 
er. Pear of discrirninrtion •:'.-,;■. hy f.:r the stronr;ost deterrinr' force. 

Sone attenpt -^^as -srf'e to re.ned " tl'.ir sitUL.tion hy instructi:ig the 
field o":,ices to "'.rotect the identity o? con plainants. (*) This, ho'7- 
ever, vas unsn.tisfrctory in der'.li.i;: --ith the jrohle^i. These instructions 
vere supplenentec' on ha-- 1"-, 1S3''- "^'^ ^'■■"- l!"f:cirbive Orrer prohil)itin2 the 
disnissrl or denotion o" e:-.plo:'ens "or con ."laininf:; or /"ivinc evidence, 
under penalty of fino and in.prirjjn-:,e:it. (**)' 

Tnile the E-:ec\itive Order ■ T.r :'.if .icult to enforce, it had value 
in it?, morfxl effect on employers and e-i.-loyeoc. T-O' ever, it failed to 
dispose of the "roolen heca.usc o:" tjic inprrcticahility of its enforce- 
nent in the court ^. This is -ell illu'^tr-^ted hy t. 
one of the fe'- case-; referred to th'; courts unc'-ir this oro.er 



{*y Suprr., Chapter V, section 7, "f.on-disclosure ov cources of con- 
plaints"; "Re.'ul.ations for Adjustnent, etc." (Octoher IS, 1S33) , 
p. U; :5alletin ho. 7, pp. 7-S; Pield Letter IPp, p. 12; Tielc. 
Letter US, p.l. 

(■**) Z-:ecutive Order ho. 67II i:.v:' I5, 1S3'+) • 



9S6l 



-i; 



)'i- 



Shortly sifter tlie insiTPiice of the Z::ec\itive Order c. conplpdnt -jp.s 
filoo. -itli tae Lov.ir.ir.na Str.tc Office p.fT.inr.t an inc.ur.tr-' nenoer in 
I\'e-.' Orlep,nr. , Lr . (*) Irr.ec.iatoly after 'bein;';' notif ioo. o;" the con- 
plaint respondent crllec rl\ hir, e-iployees tot'.'ether and told then that 
unlecs the an itI.o nad,-" tl e conplaint confesi:ed the entire shop 'Tc.s 
"oin.f; to KV-ifer. The '.'ollo'r'in-'; (r:^ tho conolrinrnt "as called int-- 
the rerjpondent' -; of ice anc disnis^'ed. After nrn7 unsuccessful attenpts 
at adjustnent Tdv tlie Stcte Director';: Office the case '/as referre.' to 
the State Adjustnent Joard fnr a hecrin;;:. The St.'.tc A'f just :ent hoard 
unajii-io\\sl-' rccounended that unless the re':'5ondent nade full riifititxition 
and reinstrted the conplainant -Tithin five c".ays, thrt hi;.; Mue liable 
he rf-: loved rnd the case he referred to t'.ie District AttornG7 for "prose- 
cution. The respondent refused to nedce this adjustnent, so the Strte 
Director suhr.itted a sunnary of the ca,f:c to the Gonpliance Division 
•'ith tho reruest that he he ."uthori;:ed to prepare the case for prosecix- 
tion. As r result of nevnrol conferences het^'eor. officials of the Gon- 
pliance and Liti.f-rtion Divisions the Str.te Director -t.-.s requested to. 
send in the conolete .file to the Litigation Division for reviev. 

The case re lainec. in the Liti-;rtion Division ."or several veehs 
rrithout any action hein-"; tfi;en. D-arin • this tine letters and telez-rans 
^'ere constrntl-r conin."; in fro:; tho State Director, the State Adjustnent 
"ioarc' .-.nc" the conplainant ti.rgi'ng tha.t tJie re'.-.;ondent he prosecuted. The 
Conp].iance Division off ici; Is Izept incV-ily cont-^ct -hth the Litif:ation 
Division and "ere finr'i.lp successful in having that Division for"-ard the 
cese to the U.S. District Attorney for the I]astcrn District of Loiiisiane.. 

After severrl -'eoh.s had elapsed -itlj no action liaviny heen tahen 
hy the District Attorne:, the Strte Di::-ector felt that tlie respondent's 
Dlue Ea.'^le should "be re^-.oved. Gonsen-.ientl:', a transcript of the case 
nas rcf crrrt" to the R-e.-;ional Director in Atlanta, feorf;ia. A hearin,":; 
■■as held hofore tl'.e ho ;ional Go vliance C^ov.ncil rnd f..ie respondent -as • 
deprived of the ri-jht to dis -,lay the Blue Ilr'-le. The Coiincil also 
reconnended thrt the tr?nscri-~t of the ca'^:-e he referred to the Liti-':a- 
tion Division for furtiier rctio'i. 

All darin;^; this time tie ori :inal file .ird renained in the hands of 
the District Attorney. There- is no record in tl.e file as to -'hat action 
'■.'as trhen "o-y his office, hut appa..rehtly no le/;,'al proceedings i7ere ever 
i.'nstituted. 

In accordance --ith tnc recor.inen.hation of the Gonpliance Gouncil 
the transcri-ot of this cne -t.s referred to tre ?.e ;ionrI Litii'-ption 
Attorney, ro. fiirther action -.ts tcJ-en, ho-.-ever, and at the tine of the 
Supreme Court's decision on ha-;^ c'^y, 1935, the case -as on suspense in 
the files of the Litigation Division -.'ith the notation that "no inter- 
state Connerce -.'as shovrn"',". 

The record of the rhove Mentioned case clearly illtistrates the 
difficulties encountered ^oir the Ac dnistrr.tion in its efforts to enforce 
the Ilr:ecutive Order of h"ay I5, 1?3'-:-. In vie^-' of t^^e fact that this -/as 
one of the stroA'.'cst cares de^^-eloped 'y tho Gonpliance offices it also 
sho'7S thr.t the enforcencnt of.'icials -'ere sheptical of court action in 

c ases Q sec on th is Or'^.er. 

(*) See Litigation Division case :'ilns, doc'-et no. L-U[i7. 
SS61 



-155- 



The gravity of this "basic practical problem of protecting the 
source of complaints was in tue fact that information derived from em- 
ployees constituted the major .-imount of evidence of violations. (*) 
V^hile no accorate and com-orehensive figures exist as to the number of 
employers keeping adequate vv^ige and hour records, general experience 
wdth mass compliance surveys, notably in Onio, indico.te the figure to 
be about 30 percent. The Boot and Shoe survey, the only one of national 
scope, showed 38 nercent of the establishments inspected maintained 
adequate records. Tnis niomber, however, is considerably higher than 
average because of the high type of m?nagement encountered and the size 
of tne plaaits, the normal number of workers employed being in excess of 
150 -oersons. 

In coni.ection with what has been said it is interesting to note 
the statistics of ten selected offices concerning changes in the sources 
of labor complaints during the several periods of the Compliance Division's 
history. Tliese periods corresiaond ro\ighly with the four stages of develop- 
ment mentioned in earlier chapters. Prom August to December, 1933, out 
of 390 complaixits docketi.^d by the ten offices, 3 percent were anonymous, 
40 percent came from present employc-^s, and 15.5 nercent originated with 
former em'oloyees. In the next period, from January to June 15, 1934, 
4117 complaints were filed, of which 5 percent were anonymous, 34.4 per- 
cent were from present employees, r^nd 20.3 percent were filed by former 
employees. The suceeding period, from Jiiiie IS to December, 1934, show- 
ed a marked change. 5265 complaints were filed, of which ^.5 percent 
were anonymous, 27 percent minus originated with present employees, and 
34.5 percent were filed by former employees. The last named source in- 
creased 117.8 percent over the number in tne preceding five and one- 
half months period. In the l-'St five months of compliance activities, 
from January to May 27, 1935, r:,366 complaints were filed. Out of this 
number but -^.S percent were anonymous. Present emoloyees dropped to 
13.3 percent and former employees decreased to 21 percent, due to a 
large increase in the voluTie of off ice ■ complaints , including those 
which were the result of mass compli;'nce surveys. 

Section 4 - Hass compliance as a pro losed solution. (**) In the pre- 
vious pages- of this history an attem:.3t has been made to record the 
developments which took place in the coiupliqnce prOt^ram as a result of 
the experiences of the Compliance Division and ics nine Regional and 



(*) See table III, appendices, v/hich shows that roughly 56 percent of 

complaints were filed 'oy employees wnile slightly less than 19 per- 
cent of the balance were filed anonymously or by the iM'HA office 
staffs. 



■**' 



Time limitations h ve not permitted a detailed study and analysis 
of the results of mass compliance surveys, 'lowever, there has been 
collected in a siecial appendix a selected number of reports on 
specific surveys and other material for further study by the reader. 
The general conclusions stau d herein, however, are well establish- 
ed end are based on the various experiences of the Compliance 
Division in this type of activity. 



9861 



and fifty-four State Offices. The course of develonment of comioliance 
loroceciure in the field, traced in Cn^ipter V, p,s well -is the aiialysis of 
the com"jl?,ints sysiiem presented in the preceding three sections of this 
chapter, disclose that the reliance placed on cohnlaints as txis sole 
basis of procedure was unsatisfactory. 

Numerous ex'oerimeni/S were made with Siiiftin^; the basis of ■oi'ocedui'e 
to an inspection system, and this was found to answer many of the objec- 
tions atta.ched to ti:ie original complaints -olan. These ex-.ieriments , vaiich 
were popularly known as "mnss corroliance surveys" , took several forms, but 
~e re. similar ioi tnat they involved the elements of mass 'production plus 
a ijositive .ctivity in searching out violations and obtaining compli3.nce. (* 

Mass com-'oli-nice was essentially a. ^^lan for dealing with the bro-d 
comoli-'.nce "oroblems of a related ^roup of employers. Thus, it was iDOSsible 
to deal with a situation with a full laiowledge of the facts and of the 
fundamental causes of the violations. This was the intelligent way of 
attacking the "oroblem, since, as has been stated, witnout such a method 
of treatment, the solution of comnliance arobleras by correcting the vio- 
lations of individual employers hr-d only a temporary effect. 

This tyoe of -orocedure was based on the dealing with a grout) of 
employers more or less as a unit. There was obviated to a large degree 
the objection that individuals proceeded against were placed at com-oet- 
titive disadvantages, since, theoretically at least, all employers in 
the grou"o vifei'e insoected and were dealt with on the same basis. (**) 

Moreover, being r. self-initiated project, com'oliaace' activities 
under a mass corA-nliance system were subject to direction and control 
by the adjninistrative agency. Efforts could be concentrated on partic- 
ular industries or localities or could be proportionately distributed 
among several groups, subject to certain mechanical limitations. This 
Was a more efficient use of compliance facilities, since although the gross 
administrative exoense mi^ht be increased, the relative results ob- 
tained were iru.ch higher. Little data exists for an adequate and accurate 
appraisal of the results under mass compliance surveys as against the 
adjustment of single comolaints. As a striking illustration, hov^ever, 
figures corn-oiled in Ohio in connection with three cities show the' follov/- 
ing record of restitution before and after surveys had b een conducted; ( ***) 

(*) A discussion of the origin of mass compliance is contained in 
Chapter V, section 3. 

(**) In the following section tnere are pointed ouc the needs of an 

effective mass comnliance system, to pl-ce this tneory of procedure 
in actual operation. 

(***) See Ohio State Office report on mass compliance activities, 
Aagu.st 1, 1935. 



9861 



-157- 

CITY RSSTI7UTI0H 

Full Year 1934 Jan. 1 - May '5, 1935 

(prior to survey) (after survey) 

Akron - - ¥1,179.95 - - .:p4,5'51.37 

Canton - - 882.35 - - 5,156.03 

Youngstown - 952.41 - - 15,547,92 



While during the latter period adjustment technique had "been 
developed, this was counterbalanced hy an increased "sales resistance" 
on the part of respondents. 

Reports from other offices show large amounts of restitution re- 
sulting from mass compliance surveys, but are not arranged so as to be 
so easily compared with results under txie complaints system. By way 
of example, the Los Angeles State Office handled --^89 cases under a 
survey conducted in the city of Los Angeles, out of which 278 were 
adjusted with restitution amounting to $46,476.66. The balance of 211 
cases were sending on May 27, 1935. (*) 

It is impossible . to estimate accurately the actual cost of ODerat- 
ing under an inspection system since there is scarcely iiny information 
now available on this noint. Time has not permitted n study of the 
number of oersonnel used and needed in making various types of surveys. 
Moreover, it is felt the value of this data must necessarily depend on 
the naLure of ar^y future industrial regulations, and whether they are 
applicable to all or to a selected group of industries. 

One of the chief, disadvantages of the comrjlaints system was that 
no action could be taken until a complaint had been filed and accepted 
as stating a prima facie case. As a result, it has b een shown, viola- 
tions went unreported for long periods of time' and conditions of non- 
compliance became aggravated through neglect . Mass complinjice had 
this advantage, that the State Offices took the initiative in search- 
ing out violations and thus tended to eliminate the piling pp of vio- 
lations in individual establisliments. The complete accomplishment of 
this aim, of' course, was not attained because the use of mass compliance 
surveys was still more or less in its experimental stages. 

By ch'^nging the basis of procedure, likev/ise, the prob,lem of pro- 
tection of complainants' identities was greatly minimized. The source 
of information was made impersonal and the complainant's place was 
taken by the State Office staff. (**) In the proposed mass compliance 
or inspection system complaints would have been used only as one in- 
cidental source of information, investigation relying chiefly on the 
inspection of records and the interviev;ing of employees. 

(*) See Los Angeles State Office report on mass compliance, July 24, 

1935. 
(**) See Cha.pter V, section 2, and section 7 



9851 



-15S- 

Surveys fell into cwo general classes: educational surveys and 
coim^liance investigations. The former was tne most widely employed, 
considera'ble experience with educationsl surveys h-wini^ been had 
es-oecially in Ohio. The most notahle example of the latter class was 
the n;,tionsl "Boot and Shoe survey, beginning March d5, 1934. (*) 

While the ultimate goal of the development of compli-ince procedure 
was the development of a regular inspection system, for investigating 
the code coiTpliaiice of employers, there had to be an intermediate step. 
This was tne educational process which is always of prime importance in 
the nuministration of regulations affecting the daily business activities 
of large numbers of persons. The employer had to be furnisned with a 
copy of his obligations and convinced of the advisability of installing 
and maintaining time card and payroll systems which would simplify the 
task of checking on compliance. 

Such Tireliminary groundv/ork for permanent compliance could best be 
done by ?, s.irvey devoted to that puroose. Educationsl surveys were con- 
ducted in several of the states vvfith marked success,. 

Under each of the tv/o ^.eneral clasees mentioned aoove there were 
two types of surveys: by industry and by locality. The latter v/as used 
mainly to cover distributing trades, ^ waile the former was more adapted 
to large industrial centers. Usually a combination of both types was 
used. ■ , 

Sect-ion 5 - Mechanics of the mass compliance system. (**) Having 
briefly considered the advantages of operating on an inspection, rather 
than on a complaints basis, note should be taken of some of the mechanics 
employed in ms-ss compliance surveys. 

It was imoortant in the planning of surveys first to gather com- 
plete information on the size of the industries, the names of employers, 
and the past compliance experience. This entailed conferences with 
labor and trade groups, a stud;y, of complaints files and of available in- 
dustry lists, and further- conferences w ith members of the staff. Special 
attention had to be paid to peculiar characteristics of the industry, 
such as the type of records likely to be encountered, the location nf 
the units, the general attitude- of the group toward compliance, and other 
similar pertinei:t information. 

The next step was the s.election a.nd training of the personnel to 
be used- in the survey. Where regular Field Adjusters were concerned, 
this stage comprised only the giving of instructions concerning the 
assignments. However, in a number of Surveys -a dditional personnel was 
obtained on a tcm-;orary basis from the State Emergency Relief Adminis- 
tration. In the latter case, the nevr Workers had to-be carefully chosen, 



(*) Reports of several State Offices taking part in thLg, survey are 
included in' the special mass compliance appendix. 

(**) For descriptions of mechanics of particular surveys, see reports 
inclu.ded in special appendix. 



9861 



-159- I 

usually on the basis of mental pleitness, personality, and experience 
in meeting the Duolic. Relief v/ork^rs were used ordinarily only on 
educ'itional srirveys. The nev/ workers had to oe carefully trained in 
the data to be secured, the uiethod of a'oproach ■ to particular types of 
em-oloyers, and in the technirjiie of in'iKinyt, field calls. (*) 

The personnel used in the survey v/as usiially divided into teams, 
each headed by a captain. The captains in turn were under a supervisor, 
who was directly responsible to the Labor Compliance Officer or other 
member of the State Office staff in ultimate charge of the -survey. 
Assignments mij^ht be on the basis of territories, as in locality riifv^oy:-., 
or lists of siiecific establisisments to be inspected. 

In educational surveys the workers usually filled out card reports 
on eacn call a.nd turned them in to the su-oervisor' for checking each day. 
The latter then followed u-i any reports of employers' refusing to give 
information. 

In comiiiliance drives this procedure v/as necessarily different. 
The Fielci Adjusters made inspections and usually atte.n-oted to obtain a 
signed agreement to adjust the violations which were found. The details 
of the a.djustinent were then wor.<;ea out oy members of the staff assigned 
to that particular T)hase of the work. (This scheme of organization was 
regularly used by some offices in the handling of complaints, see Chapter 
IV, section 5, supra.) w'hero the imiTiediate adjustment of the violations 
could be made at the time of insnection, the case was usually so handled. 
This, however, w?s oossible in only a small percentage of cases. 

Following the day's insr)ection, the Field Adjusters made individual 
reports on each case. These were reviewed, and those showing violations 
were turned over to the adjustment staff. The latter then arranged con- 
ferences with the various employers and attemjted to work out adjust- 
ments. 

Following the completion of the survey, the results were tabulated 
and the data gathered was prepared for future use. 

From the foregoing there are indicated certain necessary elements 
of an effective and efficient inspection system. For TDurposes of summaiy 
these are mentioned briefly, without a repetition of the experiences on 
which the conclusions are based. 

First, there must be intelligent and careful planning of surveys 
and all relevant facts must be available. 

Second, there is needed an adequate and trained staff. Selection 
of the personnel should be on a merit basis with due regard for the^ 
requisite qualifications of the particular jobs. Especially, the Field 
Adjusters should be thoroughly trained in the policies of the organi- 
sation and in methods and techniques of investigation and adjustment 



(*) See particularly the Ohio State Office reports, 
9861 



-160- 

before being assigned to actual work. In setting up the scheme of 
organization useless executive positions snould be eliminabed and the 
emphasis laid on creating a large enough staff of Field Adjusters to 
carry out the program. The importance of Field Adjusters is reflected 
by the f jct that over 54 percent of the docketed labor cornplaints were 
closed tnrough this mediiun. (*) 

Third, the authority to make inspections should be clea.r. It is 
highly important that not only there be authority to ins-oect records, 
but that reasonable requirements be introduced for the mrdntenance of 
Wage and hour records.. 

Fourth, there should be an effective system for following un 
ins-oections with a speedy -oroceduro for enforcement (including adminis- 
trative relief). There should be a, centralization of responsibility 
for completing adjustments not disposed of immsdiately in the field. 

In advancing these recommendations in the form of conclusions, 
it is contemplated that the moat effective 'oermanent procedure is a 
routine inspection system, under which the efforts of local offices 
would be coordinated into a national scheme. This would h^e to be 
supplemented, however, by special investigations, and should be presaged 
by educational surveys to acquaint industry with its obligations and 
to establish goodwill. 

It is \mfortunate that the rapid strides being made in the develop- 
ment of mass comoliance methods were abruptly terminated by the invali- 
dation of the co'dcs. However, sufficient experience had b ecn had in 
this field to convince members of the Compliance Division staff that the 
use of mass compliance methods presented a more practical means of ad- 
ministration of labor standards than the reliance originally placed on 
complaints as the sole basis of activity. 



(*) See table V, apnendices. 



i 



9861 

/ 



-icl- 
PART IV 

Cntpter VIII - Statistical Suinmary of the Activity of the 
Compliance Division 

Section 1 . - A. Basic Data . 

A system of reportin.-: -lYfS maintained by the Compliance Division 
throughout the operating period of KEIA. reports v;ere designed to pro- 
vide the National Office ■ ith an indication of the rel. tive efficiency 
of the field offices and to give those directly responsible for the • 
administration of the various codes a picture of compliance conditions 
in tae industries v.ith vhich they -.vere concerned. 

Because of a series of chaages-m de at different times in the 
data required in tne current reports <;'nd tne inadequacy of the reports 
for statistical purposes an entirely nen analysis of state and regional 
office cases was m-ae subsequent to tae Schechter decision. The follow- 
ing tables nave been compiled from these more or less uniform analyses. 

The figures do not include all reported violations of NSA codes due 
to the limitations on the jurisdiction of the Compliance Division. They 
do not include cases originally received c nd acted on by Code Authorities 
and other special adjustment agencies, (*) nor do they include complaints 
received by the • compliance offices and forwarded to Code Authorities. 
Tn'3 figures presented here are those for the NRA State Offices, excluding 
those which- were refs-rred to the Compliance Division and Regional Offices 
for special administrative action. 

In analysing the case record, all cases wnich -.vere handled to a con- 
clusion by the state offices and the files closed by them were included. 
In addition, all cases pending on May 27, 1935, which had been developed 
sufficiently to indicate the existence of a violation and its character 
"'ere analysed and included in the tabulations. 

Omitted from the count were: 

a. All cases which n d been ref-rred to higher agencies or to en- 
forcement agencies cfter the state offices had exhausted methods designed 
to secure an adjustment. -The number of these cases is shown in Table XXIV. 

b. Cases refer ed to Code Authorities on reference prior to June 16, 
1934, were excluded. (**) These complaints were referred with the re- 
quirement that a report be submitted on their disposition and subject to 
the right of the compliance office to resume jurisdiction and to handle 
the case if the Code Authority's actions were not deemed adequate. Since 
the files on most of these cases had pt ssed out of the possession of NBA, 
the detailed information required in the case analysis was not available 

T*") These include tue National Labor Board, Wc tional Labor Relations 
Boaxd, tne v. rious .Regional Labor Boards; the Cotton Textile In- 
dustrial Relations Board and its succer.sors; tne Petroleum Adminis- 
trative Board and the Fetrole\im_Labor Policy Board; the Agricultiiral 
Adjustment Administration; the i'ederal Alconol Control Administration; 
and a number of special boards established for particular industries, 
i'ootnote continued on next page. 

9861 



-162- ■ ■ 

and, although the Compliance Division was responsi''ole for their heing 
satisfactorily closed, it has been necess.ry to exclude them from these 
statistics. The number of sucn complaints is given in Table 24. 

c. Cases referred to the Code Authority in the first instance prior 
to June 16, 1934, are omitted. 

d. Mass compliance inspections, or requests for an investigation by 
a Government purchasing agency, were not included unless violations were 
disclosed. 

e. Complaints pending on May 27, 19r55, vnich nad not been investi- 
gated at the termination of the Compliance Division activities. The 
number of these cases is also given in the following chapter. 

2. Method o f Preparation of Statistics . 

As has been explained, the data on sttto office operations has been 
compiled from case analyses prepared by the field offices from their 
records subsequent to May 27, 1935. These analyses were checked in 
Wasnington to ascertain whether reports nad been prepared in accordance 
with instructions, (*) all questionable items being checked against the 
case file. The msterial was transcribed by the 'fashington staff to a 
form suitable for ounbh-card tabulation. Arrangements were made with 
the Bureau of the Census for machine tabulation on the basis of plans 
worked out by the Statisticel Section of the Field Division. 

The cases analyzed were divided into two principal classes: labor 
cases, comprising those cases dealing with violations or alleged vio- 
lations of wage, hour and general labor provisions of codes and of the 
Executive Orders dealing with the oosting of labor provisions, discharge 
of employees for making complaints and employment of handicapped workers; 
and trade practice cases, including cases arising under price, fair trade 
practice and general administrative provisions, ""hile there may be some 
objection to the inclusion of "administrative violations" in the trade 
practice group, certain of them, such as failure to file prices, rates 
and tariffs, failure to supply statistical reports and failure to comply 
with various types of registration requirements, are closely related to 

•(*) Eor instructions issued to State offices governing prep;, ration of 
analyses see mimeographed letters from J. H. ^erd, Assistant Field 
Division Administrator to Regional and St, te l\fRA Directors, dated 
July 10, 1935, and August 3, 1935, subject "Analysis of State Office 
Cases". For instructions for periodic statistical reporting during 
the active period of the codes, see Field Letter No. 154, Aufjust 25, 
1934. In USA Studies Special Exhibits Work ,,iaterials #35, 

Footnote "from preceding page. . 

{**) Original plans for tiie survey included cases sent on reference to 
tiie Code Authority prior to June 15, 1934. Analyses were received 
for ^75 labor and 126 tra.de oractice cases only, and these were 
omitted from the majority of the tabuL.tions. 



9861 



-163- 

trade nrfctice regulations. Furthermore, rince thir 'breriJcdO'.^n was 
used in cln.ssifying cases for reoorting and for filing purposes 
prior to the Supreme Court decision, it •'■^r:. not thought advisable to 
introduce a 'brRic chpn^re in classifications. An -dditional group of 
ca.ses ansilyzed were those involving alleged violations of the 
President's Reemiijloyment Agreenent, 

3. Definitions of Terms Used , Cj-^SI, : 

In general, all comnlaints -diich -jere valid, on their face were 
docketed for investigation. 

Since the formal a,cceT)tance and docketing of a comolaint in- 
volved the -oreTDaration of several cards for v?rious card, files and 
the making uv of a. ja.cket, it oecarae necessa.ry to except certain 
classes of com"olp,ints from this r)rocedure "because of their volume. 
Large numhers of comiDlaints charging violations of administrative 
TDrovisions of codes, usurllj'' failure to file prices or statistics, 
and failure to register ■ ith the Code Authority for the industry, 
were filed -dth St?,te Offices of the Com-plirnce Division "by Code 
Authorities. Since there complaints were usually in the form of long 
lists of industry members, or concerns su"--nosed to be subject to the 
Code, docketing a comr>laint against each concern would have im-oosed a 
heavy hurden of clerical work in offices vrhich were already over- 
burdened. Often raaj^]' of the concerns charged with violations were 
no longer in business or not subject to the code alleged to have 
been violated. Field offices v-ere 'therefore granted permission to 
act on these com-olaints, usually by writing letters to the respon- 
dents in a,n effort to secure compliance, without the formality of 
making uio a docket. (*) 

Non-payment of assessment cr:ses, "oroperly certified by the Code 
Authority, and containing no other tyrje of violation, were fon7arded 
without docketing by the State office to the Contribution Section 
of the Compliance. Division in '""shington. (**) 

Except for coraDlaints such as those described in the foregoing 
paragraph, the first complaint against a concern was normally docketed. 
During the early period of comrDliance activity, efforts were directed 
tovrards adjusting individual com-3laints. (***) Later, stress was 
placed on the necessity of clearing uv all violations in any establish- 
ment comr)lained a.ga.inst. In line v/ith this development, instructions 
were issued to state offices on August 25, 193^i tii^t all successive 
complaints a.gainst a concern on which there was an o-oen file were to 
"be joined to the -previous file, with the ourpose of securing one ad- 
justment of a;il violations. Separate files against one establishment 
which were open at the time were to be consolidated. (****) If new 



(*) This occurred notably in the case of the Trucking Code. See 
Field Letters Ho, I56, August 28, 153^. P-l". No. I67, Oct. 1, 
I93U, p. 1; and No. I76, November 3, IS3U, r,. 1. 

(**) See Field Letters No. 16U, Se^t. 21, 193>4-, -0. 1, and No. 169, 
October 10, 153^," v. 1. 

(***) Cha.-nter Y, Section I. 

(**=^*) Field Letter No. 15U, August 25, 193^. 



9261 



•■ . . -164- 

comTjlaints vere filed after the clOBin(;- of files oa Torevious com- 
olcants, it was customary: to make uu a ne;.' dockt;t. L.i'bor and trnde 
prrctice comolaints a^^-^inst the seme establishment 'ere frequently 
carried on se':)ar-'te docket n'oinhers. 

The term "case" as used in the'^e statistics doer, r.otj therefore, 
necessarily re^oresent an individual c'oranlf.int , no.: cc^z it nl-.-^ays 
re-oresent all of the material a.f^ainst a sin^jLi conocr;). The most 
nearly accurate definition nhich can he aireu Js th-,! it con- 
stitutes a docket of co!nr)laints, usually a;2a.in^;t one e^tahlishraent 
or branch establishment, -hich vras ha.idled as &,n entity by the 
field office. Fi.'Tires on the number of successive coraolaints 
against the same estpblishment are iiicliidcd in ther-e tables, and 
are discussed in the followinc section. 

Ad,1usted Cases: These cases re'oresent dockets satisfactorily 
closed by the State Office, '.ihiile the Division's oolicy as to 
adjustment underv'ent duvelo-oment and chang-e during the nineteen 
months of its et'iistence, the adjustment of business loractices or 
of norkinj; conditions ',7ithin an establishment to bring about full 
conformity with code requirements vas ^^l-'Sjs considered essential. 
The "Llanual for the Adjustment of Complaints" (l-IRA Bulletin Kq. 7) 
issued in January, 193^» specified the making of "eqaitable 
restitixtion for Tjast violations" as a condition precedent to the 
filing of a com-olaint as adjusted. In June, 193^, standards for 
restitution "oayment were defined as the riay^ent of all 'lage defici- 
encies T)ius a ^enaJty rate for rll illegal overtine T/orked. These 
standards -ere further el?bora,t^d and refined during the following 
year. A large number of cases were settled '-ithout the requirement 
of back-wage r>ayment, ho'jever. (*) 

In connection with violations of trade -orpctice and adminis- 
trative regulations, the "adjustment" of a. case normally required 
the cessation of the violation and the filing of a "certificate of 
com-oliance", an agreement to comTDly with code requirements in the 
future, Thile Bulletin ITo. 7 made no distinction between lebor and 
trade practice complaints in the requirement of "equitable resti- 
tution", in- practice it was usually imioossible to determine the ex- 
tent of damage caused by violations of trade ■orpctice provisions or 
the "oersons who had been directly injured, 

Mo Violati o n Cases: These C"ses represent complaints acceiDted as 
adequ-te but found after investigr tion to be without a basis in fa.ct, 
"Primary rejects", a.s explained above, are not included. 

Dropped Cases : These re^Dresent cases in which violations were found 
to exist but "hich could not be settled by ci,dministrative action and 
were not considered suitable for litigation or further action. Labor 
totals include. 52b ca.ses in the nine service tra.des and in the 
Restaurant Industry.", rhiph were dropped after reraovpl of the I-IHA in- 
signia by the State NBA Com-olipnce Director. 



(*) See belo\7, ta-ic of "'Jpge Restitution" ?nd also Tables VIII. 
9261 



-165- 



In trcde practice crses, if the practice complained of ceased to be 
a code violation, because of a chan.'~e in the code (e.g., price-fixing 
under the Cleaning and Dyein;- Code), iinadjunted violations v/ere norraallj;- 
dropped. A similar circumstance arose r/hen compliance ^■'ith the Lumber 
and Timber Products Code v/as made vol-'ontary after April 11, 19S5. The 
majority in this classification of cases \7ere dropped, however, because 
they ue-re unsuitable for litigation, sometimes because the violation was 
minor or of a technical nature, often because the respondent vras small 
and only an unimportant factor in his industry. (*) 

Pendin^'^ Cases ; This classification includes those cases pending on May 
27, 1935, which had been investigated sufficiently to disclose the nature 
of the violation. 

Violrtion : A viola.tion represents a failure to adliere to one code pro- 
vision. In the count of violations, each code provision involved in a. 
case is shovm as a separate violation. 

4. Limitations of Data : In usir^g ITRA State Office figures to evaluate 
the extent of compliance with l^HA code provisions, one must consider cer- 
tain definite limitcitions on the data. 

It shoijld be emphasized that these figures represent statistics of 
non-compliance rather tha.n statistics of compliance. Furthermore, the 
volume of complaints is for the most part the result of individual initia- 
tive of those v/ho suffered from code violation ra.ther than the result of 
a census of compliance conditions in the industrj"-. (**) It is known that 
a widespread condition of non-compliance could exist in certa.in codes and 
certain areas ^/ithout statistical evidence in the form of complaints 
lodged b;- individua^l complainants. 

The figures of ERA. State Offices do not represent the entire volume 
of complaints because of the division in complaint activity between N?A. 
State Office and Compliance Division and Hegional Offices, the Code Autho- 
rities, and the group of special adjustment agencies, such as the Petroleum 
Labor Folic;-- Board, and other agencies listed above. A dramatic illiis- 
tration of this division is found in the Schechter case, which originated 
with an agent of the Code Authority, and went to the courts without passing 
through either the JIEA. State Offices or the Compliance Division. 

The figures do not represent the entire volime of cases passing 
through the State Offices, since the survey is confined to docketed cases 
only. Cases referred to other agencies, cases rejected at the outset as 
not violations, cases involving assessments or registration, inspections 
for mass complianc e^ or at the request of Government purchasing agencies 
not resulting in the discovery of violations, are all excluded. 

There are also variations between offices in docketing practices 
and in the interpretation of the instructions given, which result 

(*) Chapter V, Section 9. 

(**) For a discussion of the two t3rpes of approach to compliance, indivi- 
dual complaints, or mass compliance, see Chapter VII, Section 4. 

9851 



-166- 

in some consistent bir^ses in the figures. These rrill be -oointed out in 
connection v;ith individual tables, (*) 

Section 2. Series of Tables of Con-olaint Statistics . 

The figures have been reported according to the provisions 
alleged to have been violated. They fall accordingly into three 
groups, one for labor violations; a seco:.d for violations of trade 
practice and rdministrative provisions; and a third for violations 
of the President's Seem-olojrmcnt Agreement. Violp.tions of, code 
provisions h-ve been tabulated first by State Office, and second 
by code. 

Only selected tables are -oresented here. Of those included 
many show only national totals. Detpiled figures are available in 
the records of the Ststisticrl Section of the Field Division. (**) 

Evaluation of code er'Toerience necossitrtes comrjarison of re- 
norted figures vrith census data, to determine volume of complaints 
in relation to an external standard. Figures for relative numbers 
of em-oloyees and estrblishments in th>j industry are essential to the 
interoretation of the code figures. 

(*) There is "Iso a margin of error resulting from the mere number 

of cases to be subjected to case analysis. 'Jhile it was intended 
that the analyses should be ^Dreoare\ by compliance officers, 
field adjusters and others f.jjniliar -ith code orovisions, in 
some instances the clerical staff was drafted for the work. Al- 
though the retjorts as submitted to 7?shington Fere checked for 
consistency and numerous correction letters -rere written to the 
fielcl, it is probable that miscoding and transcription errors 
rariic'in in the original reT)orts received from the states. The 
fin?.l r.odixig vrhich was done in ".T-ishington was checked and 
edited; r.~d. the punch cs.rds verified, so tha.t mechanical errors 
of this t-'/Toe were cut to a minimum. 

(**) See A.-opendis I, Index of Tables. 



9261 



-Iu7- 

c-s:z:"^^\i si^.'ii.LAirr oi code caTLAiiiTS 

The sumraary fi'^u-cs for the ISA State Of vice Co:-nlaints reported 
in the survey are iV.io- -n in the follcving table: 

KlA S'-J-.!E OFFICE COiiFLAlKT 3?.l^IS^ICS 

Cc.r.es ^-ccepted for Investi;';.' tion 

October 15, 1933 - L!a.y 27, IQ-i^ r/ 

Lr.ooi' TrEif'.e Prp.ctice 

Docketed 123,152 36,977 

Adjusted . 50,2^0 19,67U 

No violation foxuid ' ^7,312 8,09!+ 

Dropped 14,353 5.295 

Penuing 10,577 3,91^- 

Investigated 6,452 3,362 

Hot investigated '',515 552 



a/ The IJKk State Offices -..-ere officially nctive fron October I9, 1933, to 
May 27, 1335" A totrJ- of llU la,bor cc^plaiats ccce-oted by other 
agencies prior to tho.t date have been incluf.ed. -Pic^ares for U75 labor 
and 126 trpde pr ctice cora-claints sent on reference to code authorities 
prior to June lo, 1S3''-, I'^^'^ve been excluded. Labor totpls also exclude 
236 cares reportc'. as ^ra.'e practice and subse-uently found to be labor. 



Prejjared by: 
Statistical Section, 
Field ^Jivision, iZlA 
Pebruary 28, I93S. 



9S6l 



168 



■a 






I 



K\ O KV* J* Oi K> 



^ r^r*^ ;* H K\rt CU lf\C\l C\J CM W (\I p^ f^»-» (\J w 



K\ r«% 






in vo CM 



9 I 

o 



"a 

lO « 

o • 

»-< 4* 

s & 

S 1 



I 



J I 






a 






9 

i 






f f^n^^^ a8ii§ s°s?»*s»i ?>§:^?;r^i; is§i^ 



CU irt iH r-l 



K% o o o (ill ov»j» fu KM^H va o to r-i K\.-i3[ WW o. rf^ JC ^7 *! SJ ^ 'S^S^S.Cr 
m <u UMO <-t o r- (\j f-ic\jj»j* K%(T\vo r<^c\j if\to to o m o iTi O c\i If* CT\ r-i ^r-f-r-w 



Vi> rH J^-i-lfH^ ;3'^J*'<M 



r-(rH WiHrHrHrHiH rH «OCMK\ 



CM <r»vp <H r— ON ^- ^ 
vp Ob J* K% nj KN cy ff\ 

3F ir. K\ 



r^K\pHK> rH <r» rH 10 tH <\J r^ iH ey O KNrH CM CM ftl t-IVO vi CM O 3" OH 

K) *0 IfN r-f-l CU iHH r- r-ttU^fH K\fHH 






S J- rH -H ie\rr\ O iTlrHlTirH J» rH a\ rr\ K\ r^ K\ W rH rH <J\ CU »«> 



aK\j* vi> cy J* K\j* oj oj n oj vo \^ o in r^ km*- w ^o vi> K\rH lo ovknq <\i sr^^'^2'^ 
K\ CM (\» c\j ^K^ ^D r^ vp o^ in 1-^ o o r^ ONKN rH j» a^^■ r* ^<^^ w j* w -* ^ ^'^-^ ^ 

r^ in lA t^ in «0 rH K\rH rH K\ ^ fi i-t 



9 

3 



niO K\rrv 



r-ocTxr- r-K>to<ur^»oiooNO !0'^'£2 '^55*^^ 
intfNr^tu CU f-» <r\j* if\ir\o%ir> w r*-\ cr» j- r*- KMom 






r. CU VD ITS CU (Ts O Q 
r— r-vo <r\K>cu <H^ 

»rt «J>\D ITtrH^ OJVO 



\0 ^ 



^ mio r»- 



KMO KMnj* K\CTMrv\0 

310 CU CU «0 r\^ UMO 
K\CU rH CU CU ONOJ i-H 

to CUVO K\ (U CUiH 0«HCUrHi-*pH< 



r»-(T\CUOOlfM0K\ \i>K\CJN0MO 

ID r— cr\ r^ K\ r-^ r- ir« kn r^ CU ir\ 

J^r^rHCU^OmOirv ,-(,-H0OrH 



%4 



9861 



S'^a 



d 

o 



i S|h. 

3rH 5 
■ -t 
«» JJ •-< 4» 

«8.8 



• O ft • 5j 

rl -^ -^ • 5 5 2 

3 3jS£;js 



d • as 

M • O b 



.£ 



3 3 



3-0>l* rHKIHIrHliahh 



.«»t,M---^ -«r.^i. 

3P O O 
a o ik I 



P^ -H 

IS2»S--3 3^m 



169 



f3 



O 4» 

s & 

CO ^ 



5 
■8 






n 



o 

8 



9 

a 

5 



o. 



9 



s, 



o 



98bi 



• a 
o o 



u> tno J- t*- 
wvo r*^K^o^ 






I 



KNW^ I 



Ojt to 



7\<a fi o ■- 

kVD O iH K>f- 



» s 



H f*- w rnr* 



I 1-1 CTNir\r^ ir» O CM 



j^ «o iH a\ 



to r-~a\a\r^ 

ojcximttom v^v 

(\j r^ CM j» r*- v^ «-i iTv^ K\«o f-4 (M <r\ 



r^j* ^ rH r«^ p4 r- ir\ rH ( 



cr% t^vo o cu c\j r-i o cu o 
cy r^3- KV* K\<T»MVD^ 

cy rH Mj:t cy 



r^ irt«o^ cy 
ph^ cy K\H 






a 



V0 

(M 

O 

•3 



VO 



KMnONCTNO WDrH KV* f^ ro h- t" 

ir\M KMTv^ (Tt r-i cu cy cy 



cy o c\i K\r- 



o irtvp t*\to to «o t 
ir\ \o »— to .-» iH < 



I ^ cy (\i cy K\ 

i cy o r«^cu m v 



cy iTt 



to J^^ K%r-- 

Cy »HvZ) ^ KN 

if w to (\j r- 



S cy cy CTivD 
) to KNa\tO 



to incu cy cy Q j*^ <T\C7vrf KMr\to to ir> r- m rH cr\ r- eu rH ro 
r*-a>r-Oir\Q3'i omtskv* p^to to to ,=*• o r^-vj* cy htn r-^ 
kA CTN r-i cy <7\^ cy cy irv:^" to cy^ r^t-iK%MrH(-« t^wo k\ m 



h-to incy cy cy 

or*-- - - 



O r^ Q ONtOVO U>-* r* tH ir» o\ K> o ;* 

ocytOfHcypHincyvo OK\r-«f-icy^ 



<j\ in^X) ^ r- in cy <t\ <t\k> 
UMr»»-( cy^ cy r-«vX) p— k\ 



\ M VD CU 



eo to^ cy^t 
^' o to O cy 



8fS?3 

f-tO cr\L 



CXI cy cy mcy r-i 1 



CM ^VO K\ 



• • ^ *4 H 






*» ^ M I 



•H « ; 



0) «* •*> 

» t. CI . 
000 
It K n 



a M « 

O © 64 o 

^ t< o 

o (« « g] > -M 

wt) s d a -OH 

ctf MaooDO* 

so - (S a fH s 

1^0 4>4oanes 



to 

as a 

MAX 
H a 4 a ^ 
« o -o ♦» « 

« a •-' D » 



O -H 

as 



« « q 
h o 2 
o ^ ta 



o o 

:3 



o ^ 

d « 

O Vi 



°S5 

O h 



• a 

CO « 

■ c 

4* « 

a ■ 

31 

o 3 



"Si 



II 



s a 

m o 

,0 "3 •-4 

o ^ 

13 ^ ^ 

C 4> 0\X> 
h • K> 

« ■rf « I 

&■•» rH J- 

e < • t^ 

i« «* "4 I 

A 10 »■ lu 



-1?0- 

A. Sum-iary of LaT jor Co-;r- )lr.int Statistics . 

1. Number of Laoor Cases. 

Tatle I is the 'or,sic table showing the nu-foer.' of labor complaints 
I under codes accepted for investigation and the relr.tive share of each 
! office. 

This table incluc-es labor cases docketed froii October I9, 1933, 'to 
May 27, 1935. ti'ie period ruring which the offices \:eve officially active. 
In addition to these it includes llU cases received prior to October I9, 
and accepted by cooperating; agencies such as the 3u.reau. of foreign and 
Domestic Commerce. 

From this table r, re e::cluded ^75 reported cr.sos './I'.ich '/ere sent on 
reference bv the St te Of; ices to the Code Authorities prior to June 16, 
193^» Inadequate recor.'.'.s in the offices made it impossible to make anr- 
a,lyses for cases in this category. A total of S,U09 haJ. been reported 
as cases sent on reference to Code Authorities, in -.Teehly reports to 
June 16, I93U. 

The table also e::clu".ed 237 la.bor cases vriich -.-ere originally report- 
ed by State offices as \;ra'-e practice cases and vere sujseouently found 
to be labor cases. 

The reported voltu.io of complaints is affected Markedly by the om- 
ission of ^,515 labor cases pending on May 27, 1S33j vjhich had not been 
investigated sufficientT- to ascertain the extent of violation or the 
amount of wa^.-e restitution due.(*) 

It should be eirohasir.cd that Table I sho-.7s volivue of docketed com- 
plaints only. 

The ri^ht lia.nd portion of Table I sho'.vs cases cont.aining first com- 
plaints against respondents. This is presented in ni effort to approxi- 
mate the number of establishments against -jhich coirplaints vere filed. 

First com-'laints represent 73. 2 per cent of the total complaints 
docketed; 73. 6 per cent of adjusted complaints; 7S«3 pe- cent of no vio- 
lation cases; 72.2 per cent of dropped cases; and lS»S ?®^ cent of pend- 
ing cases. 

A separate count -as tcJren of cases reported by docket nujiiber and 
code number, but cross referenced to another docket nur.iber for their 
basic information. There v:ere 1,5^1 cases of ou-CcesGive complaints of 
this type reported as ".ropped. Of these, 135^ v'ere reported ''oir the New 
York City Office. This sn-onld be noted in cormienting on the large number 
of cases dropped by the lie'.? York City Office, ri,.',ures in Table I show a 
total of 5,056 cases dropped by this office, bu.t that only 31^+1^ cases 
were first complaints r';ainst respondents. The difference betvreen the 
total number of ca-opped cases, and the number of first conplaints reflects 
these cross-referenced cases. 



(*) See Table ^CCV. 
9861 



-171- 

To complete the pictv.re, reference should 'oe 7:r,-".e also to the vol-ume 
of complaints handJ.ec'. o;r strte Offices under the President's Reemployment 
Agreement. 

2 . Mature of Yiolr.tion. Labor Conplaints , 

In a study of bhe r.d ministration of a series of regulations on the 
conditions of labor, perhr.ps the most significant dat?. are those which 
show the provisions r.ost freoAiently cited in violations. Prom these can 
-te ascertained the relative administrative burden of different regula- 
tions. 

The study of provisions most frequently violated lias been made in 
terras of the individiial codes violated, and these res"alts have been com- 
piled separately by code.(*) These offer a fru.itf^o.l field i"or investiga- 
ting such problens as hether there '^ere relatively r.iore hour violations 
in manufacturing codes, and relatively more ija^je violations in service or 
distributing codes. TTnether the incidence of complaints in one industry 
is greater than in rjiother can be ascertained only by reference to exter- 
nal data, such as Census fi^xires for the size of the industry. ( **) 

( a) Method of 'orei:)aration . 

The classification of tjrpes of labor violations listed was fur- 
nished to the field ^Yjencics responsible for the a,naJ.ysis as a part of 
the ori.'T-inal reporting' instructions. Symbols representing these types 
were noted directly on the report forms. 

oince the inf or. lation included in ce.se files ;.ii^ht not always 
disclose the exact natu.re of the biolation, general headings for wage and 
hour violations "rere j'iven for use where furl'dier "etail was not availa.ble. 

A cla.s'oificaoion covering violations of provisions dealing '-rith 
equitable adjustuent of v.-a, es above the ininimvc:, :.iaintens.nce of weekly 
earning, maintenance of differential and similar provisions was onitted 
from the original reporting instru.ctions by er:.-or. '.."\ile such a classi- 
fication was established later, it wa.s impossible to re-expjnine all of 
the files which had been analyzed in order to cor:.ect this oversight. 
The violations so clascified in these ta.bles inclv.de onljr those definitely 
known to fall under this heading. Estimates barjod on special reports from 



(*) There is a laster file included in the records of the Statistical 

Section of the Field Division, while other copies have been released 
to the Labor and Industries Studies Section. Copies of these analyses 
were also su.pplied to the Code History Section, 

(**) See Scope of Industries under MA Codes . Poet Code Analysis, Hos. 60, 
60A and 60B, Harch 25, 193^, M,-y U, I93U and October 6, I93U, and 
Classification of Approved Codes in Industry Groups, './ork Materials 
No. 13, Division of Pteview, KRA. 



9261 



-IT.':- 

i: 
field offices shor r. total nanter of 5^^ cases. Of tliese 20U were report- 
ed bv docket nunoer r.\-\:^. ' n rdditionfd y')0 '.'ere ostir.r.ted in percentr';es 
of total later viol'tionr,. Of the 20U specificrll:" reported cases, SJ 
were adjusted, 100 no violr.tion, 11 dropped, and S pending. The 20U cases 
include 105 cases o:!" violr.tion of the eauitn,liLe adju-stnent provisions 
shown in the ^-renernl GVj.i':r.i'y. 

General "r.d'.iristi'ntive" violations iriich touched on the field 
of labor regulation, other; than violations of the lahor poster regula- 
tions, are included in the tables shovying viola.tions of trr.de practice 
and .".dministrative provisions. 

Each separate violation is shown against the classification 
under which the pr-.ctice r;as plac3d. The sum of the violations is, of 
course, equal to or gre ter than the total number of ca-ses docketed. 

(b) ilargin of error . 

The method of coripilation used and the volune of cases which 
were analyzed lias 23J-'"evented the checking of the t-'pe of violation data 
against provisions of all codes for consistency. 

Sorae notes on errors in assigning viol..tions to pprticular class- 
ifications will thro'.- li>it on the limitations of the data. The lar^-er 
part of the errors in the figures on seven major codes inspected were un- 
der the heading "Failure to pay overtime ra.te specified by code for per- 
mitted overtime". I'o provision of this type v/as included in three of the 
codes, and in the other four, the number of viola.tions sho'jn seemed out 
of proportion, due to the fact that the overtine rate vras provided only 
for emergency repair •.■or]-. It vrauld appear that these violations were 
simply violations of the : :a..::i nrara hotirs provisions. 

In the inGt~i\ce just cited and in a niiuoer of other cases, it 
is likely tha,t the analyst hr.s assigned the violation to a part,icular 
classification becar.se it a.ssamed that form rather than because the prac- 
tice was specificnJ-ly prohiibited by the code. I?or erianple, 19S instances 
of Sunday work occur in the tabulation of adjusted Resta-urant cases, and 
101 under the Retail Tood and Grocery Code, although Sunday \7ork is not 
prohibited in either. It is probably s.-^re to a.ssrj:.ie that these instances 
were actually violations of the six-day week provision, and that the em- 
ployee coripladned because he was compelled to -./ork every day of the week, 
including Sunday. 'Tnere viola.tions of provisions dea-ling with method and 
time of payment a.re sho-;n, despite the absence of specific regulations in 
the code, it may also he assumed that the violator v/a.s resorting to subter- 
fuge in wage payments in o.-'der to evade the mininoi.i wa;e» 

The clasnifications which seem particiilarly affected by errors 
are as follo'/s: 

II::ceeding daily limitation 
l^ail^ire to average down 
rii-.nday work 
Saturday work 

Padlure to pay overtirae r te specified by code 
l.lethod and time of payirient 
S861 



-175- 

Tatle II presenoGd here shov/s the nationrl ;ot Is :ror labor code 
provisions violaocc.. The h-ble is L.-^red on norvl crsos investigated by 
the State Offices be-b--ec:i October I9, 1933, and ha;- iq , 1935, (and llU 
cases accepted prior to th:,t time). It excludes coses sent on reference 
to the Code Authorities :;rior to June 16, I93U, as ell tb all other cases 
referred to specirl . ju;-.t;!e;it p;';encies. It incliides both first complaints 
against respondents, and ell successive corp.plaints -.Thich ;ere docketed 
separately. 

3 . C omplaint c h.y Codes. 

Table III sho'-s '. "\c iranber of Labor cases '0:' codec and nethod of dis- 
position. Table IV lir;\"c the twenty-five code;:, violatioiis of v/hich were 
reported most frequently. 

U . Size of xlesoondents' Establisiiments. 

The topic of the j.i^cit'ence of code regulations on labor conditions 
upon the small est -blislu'.ient has been one to wiich attention has been de- 
voted, both by the '')r\:ryo- : Gcriittee and by a section of the Research and 
Planning division of iwl, 

During; the active period of field office --^d linirbv -tion, practically 
no data '"'ere available on the si-^e of establish':entf - :ainst which com- 
plaints 'Tere lodged, (*) 

In the present sr.rve; • size of estnblishraent has 'oeen measured in terms 
of the number of ervoloyecs in the unit est bliclment. (**) i?igures have been 
grouped to sho^"' first, iTciber of erapiloyees in individually operated estab- 
lishments. (Table V) , and r;econd the number of errO.oyeec in uiiits of chain 
distributing or service or.'janizations. (Table Vl) . Offices '.vera instructed 
to report the normal si-.e of staff to avoid listortin-j the figures by short- 
ing the seasonal lov; point, Figures tend, hovevcr, to reflect size of 
staff at time of in/csti:;ation. 

In tabulatin,:; the fi;>ii'es, first coraplaints have been segregpted from 
successive coFiplaints ac^ainst respondents, in order to provide size fig:ures 
in nhich each establish- lent has been counted 03ily o:ice, regardless of the 
number of complaints a ;.■ i-ist it. 



(*) A survey of sir.c data in selected offices, including Ohio, Philadel- 
phia, Tennessee and hinnesotp, '7as rapde in ii^irch of 1935. ^^^ 'the 
results \7ere not ta'ai^lated. 

(**) Report schedules pro-'ided also for the colj.ectioa of inforraation on 
dollar volttie of bi^.siness, but tMs fi;'jure ;.'as so poorly reported 
that no tcbixlatior. could be made. The schedvle pIso provided for 
reporting the totpl :n.imber of e-iployees of c-i.ains or combinations 
as 'veil as the iTanber in unit establishments belonging to chains, 
but this inforiation v/as inadetjuate for t abuL/.tion. 



9361 




g !l M I!il!illiili lllllll i iii!l l ! ll lillllll l ll ll !i1t^^ 

is So 






o 
o 
o 
•o 



o 
o 
o 
I) 



o o o o S 

O O O o S 

o o o o S 

* Q :i s 2 



8 
o 

01 



o 

8 

« 



o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

■0 



o 

8 

10 



o 

o 
o 



o 
o 
o 
10 



9861 



QOOMMON '7NI "ANV^NOS DOOM XJ003 



SItlAia 091 AQ a*l H3NI Hid SNOISIAIO OC 10 Ct »11» ON 



state Office Series 

-175- 
ULBU II 

HHA STATS OITFICS COMPLAINT STATISTICS 
nOLATIONS 07 UBOB PROVISIOHS 
Total of all Offices - Oeto'ber. 1933, - Uay, 1935 



TOTAL HUCBBE 01* CASES 

TOTAL BUUBEB 07 TIOLATIONS 

TOTAL BDUE TIOLATIOBS 

Haziaain hovDrs (if no more 
definite information is 
available) 

Izceeding daily limitation 

Ixceedlng meklj liddtation 

7ailtire to arerage down or 
exceeding limitation of 
more than one week 

Sunday worlc 

Satnrday work 

Tiolation of six>>da]r week 

Working daring hours of the day 
not pemitted by code 

Inploysr working more than code 
maiflTmim where prohibited 

Ixceeding permitted nimber of 
persons working toiliraited honrs 

Split shifts 



TOTAL ADJUSTED 

71,507 i/ 50,311 

121,157 85,235 

57,684 39,769 



DBOFPID PSSIdSa 

14,731 6,465 

23,506 12,416 

12,011 5,904 



17,290 


10,213 


4,941 


2,136 


9,435 


6,707 


1,740 


988 


24,551 


18,233 


3,997 


2,321 


201 


106 


71 


24 


d47 


67D 


189 


88 


330 


198 


73 


59 


3,635 


2,608 


798 


229 


218 


142 


61 


15 


391 


312 


66 


13 


86 


77 


6 


3 


600 


503 


69 


28 



9861 



TOTAI. WAffB nOLATIOHS 

Minlmam wage Tiolation (if lu) 
more definite information is 
available) 

Sqtiita'ble adjustment, mainte- 
nance of weekly wage, etc. gj 

Uiniagnm wage (definitely known) 

PailTire of piece rates to 
eqtial mininnm 

Dediictions not authorized by 
the code 

Pailure to pay overtime rate 
Erpecified by code for 
penaltted overtime 

Learners, apprentices or 
Jxinior employees in excess 
of code allowance 

Snploying handicapped workers 
without certificate 

Exceeding pezmitted ntimber 
of handicapped workers 

Violation of handicapped 
workers* certificate 

Violation of provisions dealing 
with method of payment, time 
of payment, etc. 

Female discrimination 

Heclassiflcation, improper 

classification and miscellane- 
ous subterfuge 

Waiting time not paid for 

9861 



-176- 






SABIS II (ContU) 






TOTjO. 


AJUUSTHID 


ISOPfSI) PXNDIia 


58,039 


40,754 


11,045 6»240 



ao.394 



6,963 



12,608 



5»312 



5,289 2,497 



105 


87 


U 


7 


26,226 


19,629 


4,086 


2,511 


1,306 


1.000 


165 


141 


660 


483 


136 


41 



900 



851 



338 


262 


37 


39 


104 


85 


7 


12 


25 


14 


6 


5 


37 


28 


5 


4 


674 


467 


159 


48 


78 


54 


19 


5 


873 


634 


173 


66 


256 


191 


52 


13 



-177- 
ZABLI ZI (ContU) 



tfOIAL aiUQSRiL FBOnSIOHS 

Child Labor 

Tallxire to post later 
proTlBlons 

IniplOTment and payroll records 
(see Trade Practice Classifica^ 
tion) ij 

Homework, permitting homework 
vhere prohibited 

Tiolation of homework regulations 
ibere permitted 

Discharge or discrimination 
for filing complaint 

Uiseellaaeous 



TOTiL 

5,434 

316 

4,470 



.AJXrnSTEI) DBQPFSD PMDIIG 
4,712 450 272 

254 43 19 



4,012 



259 



199 



204 


154 


24 


26 


62 


36 


18 


8 


352 


229 


104 


19 


28 


25 


2 


1 



SJ Bie offices were officially active from October 19, 1933, to May 27, 1935. 
JLLso inclnded are 14 adjusted and 43 dropped cases accepted prior to 
October 19, 1933. 

^ Itotal case co\mt includes 70 adjusted, 68 dropped and 3 pending cases 
transferred from Trade Practice reports, not listed in Table I. 

c/ See srgxplementary Table XIII-A for revised figures. 

d/ State Offices generally reported this item as Pailure to Pile Labor 

Statistics which is included in Violations of Trade Practice Provisions. 

9861 



Prepared byj 
Statistical Section 
Tield Division, mk 
March 14, 1936 



-178- 
Code Series TABLE XX 

NHA STATE OFFICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS 
NUMBER OF LABOR CASES, BY CODE AND METHOD OF DISPOSITIOU 
Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - Kay, 1935 a/ 



Codes 



Method of Disposition 
Total Adjusted No Violation DroTjped Pending 



Total all Codes 



118,958 



50,311 



47,451 14,731 6,465 



Abrasive Grain Industry 

Academic Costume Industry 

Advertising Display Install- 
ation Trade 

Advertising Distributing Tr. 

Advertising Specialty Mfg. Ind. 

Air Transport Industry 

Air Valve Industry 

Alcoholic Beverage Iinporting Tr» 

Alcoholic Beverage Wholesale 
Industry 

All-Metal Insect Screen Ind. 

Alloy Casting Industry 

Aluminum Industry 

American &lassvaro Ind. 

American Match Industry 

American Petroleum Equipment 
Industry & Trade 

Animal Glue Industry 

Anti-Friction Bearing Ind. 

Anti-Hog Cholera Serum Ind. 

Art Needlework Industry 

Artificial Flower & Feather Ind, 

Artificial Limb Mfg. Ind. 

Asbestos Industry 

Asphalt and Mastic Tile Ind. 

Asphalt Sliingle & Roofing Ind. 

Assembled Vatch Industry 

Athletic Goods Mfg. Ind. 

Auction and Loose Leaf Tobacco 
Warehousing Trade 

Automatic Sprinkler Ind. 

Auto Rebuilding and Refinishing 
Trade 

Automobile Mfg. Industry 

Automotive Chemical Special- 
ties Mfg. Industry 

Automotive Parts & Eqvdpment 
Mfg. Industry 



3 




3 






5 


1 


2 




2 


57 


30 


28 


7 


2 


158 


80 


65 


13 




57 


21 


38 


5 


3 


17 


7 


7 


2 


1 


1 






1 




15 


6 


5 


1 


3 


389 


218 


91 


26 


54 


20 


14 


1 


4 


1 


1 




1 






5 


1 


1 


1 


3 


54 


14 


29 


8 


3 


10 


4 


6 






174 


91 


74 


6 


3 


3 


1 


2 






11 


3 


8 






10 


5 


3 


2 




11 


2 


7 


2 




404 


48 


238 


100 


18 


4 


2 


1 




1 


23 


6 


12 


2 


3 


5 


3 


1 


1 




16 


7 


5 


4 




4 




1 


3 




40 


19 


17 


3 


1 


27 


12 


5 


7 


3 


12 


2 


10 






59 


22 


13 


5 


19 


151 


48 


85 


14 


4 


1 


1 








441 


198 


201 


27 


15 



9861 



-179- 
ICode Series TAJLE XX 

M8JL STATE OFFICE COMPLA,IKT STATISTICS 
HUMBER OF LABOR CASES, BY CODE AND METHOD OF DISPOSITION 
Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Codes 



Uethod of Disposition 
Total Ad.iu8ted Ho Violation Dro-pped Pending 



Baking Industry 

Ball Clay Production Ind. 

Band Instrument Ufg. Ind« 

Bank & Security Vault Mfg. Ind. 

Bankers Industry 

Barber Shop Trade 

Batting & Padding Ind. 

Beauty & Barber Shop Mechanical 

Sgolpmant Mfg. Ind. 
Bedding Mfg. Ind. 
Beet Sug^r Ind. 
Beverage Dispensing Equipment 

Industry 
Bias Tape Indastxy 
Bicycle Manufacturing Industry 
Bitnininous Coal Industry 
Bitaadnous Boad Material 

Distributing Industry 
Bleached Shellac Mfg. Ind. 
Blouse & Skirt Mfg. Ind. 
Blue Print & Photo Print Ind. 
Boat Building & Boat Repairing 

Industry 
Bobbin & S[pool Mfg. Ind. 
Boiler Mfg. Ind. 
Boot & Shoe Mfg. Ind. 
Bottled Soft Drink Industry 
Bottling Machinery & Equip- 
ment Mfg. Industry 
Bowling A Billiard Eqviipment 

Industry A Trade 
Bowling & Billiard Operating Tr. 
Brattice Cloth Mfg. Ind. 
Brewing Industry 
Broom Manufacturing Ind. 
Brush Manufacturing Ind. 
Buff & polishing Wheel Ind. 
Buffing & Polishing Conposition 

Indu8ti7 



334D 
4 
6 
5 

1620 
16 

29 

222 

40 

33 
2 
4 

91 

2 

1 

362 

7 

36 

7 

38 

1584 

254 



4 

119 

3 

288 

57 

29 

3 



1466 

3 

1 

112 

821 

11 

is 

74 
32 

16 
1 
4 

30 



1 

150 

3 

12 
4 

15 
583 
117 



49 

149 
18 
12 



1208 
2 
2 
3 
146 
563 
4 

13 

110 

7 

12 
1 

41 



130 
3 

18 
1 

15 
770 
100 



1 
39 

3 
76 
26 
12 

2 

2 



402 


264 


1 


1 


1 




1 




270 


14 


216 


20 




1 


3 


1 


17 


21 


1 





20 



46 


36 


1 




2 


4 




2 


6 


2 


03 


128 


20 


17 




1 


2 


1 


2Z 


8 


30 


33 


5 


8 


3 


2 




1 



9861 



-180- 



Oode Serita TASLS XX 

HBk 9Skn OFFICE ooupuinr siatistios 

UUMBSR OF ZABOR OikSSS, B7 COSE) MS MSTEOS OF SISPOSITXOIT 
Total of all Offlooi, Ootobtr, 1933 - May, 1936 (Oontlnuad) 



ilSdUL 



Ifathod of SlQOtltiOB 
Total A.d^1n«tad »q Violation Pratmad P«ndlng 



Bxilldara 8uppli*i tTrado 
Bulk Sriaklne Itraxr ZaAittry 
Burl*tq:a« ([lhaatrloal Industry 
Buiinaia FuLraltura,8toraca Bqvilp- 

mant and Filiag Supply Ind* 
Fira Baaiativa 8afa Induatry 
Can Uaaufaoturiac Induatry 
Oandla Uasufaoturing Ind* 
Candlawlck Badapread Induatry 
Candy Manufacturing Induatry 
Canned Salmon Induatry 
Canning Induatry 
Canning & Packing Machinery Ind. 
Canvas Qooda Induatry 
Cap & Cloaure Induatry 
Cap A Cloth Hat Induatry Ind. 
Carbon Blade Mfg> Ind. 
Card Clothing Induatry 
Carpet & Ru^ Mfg. Induatry 
Cast Iron Boiler & Badiator Ind. 
Cast Iron Pressure Pipe Ind. 
Cast Iron Soil Pipe Ind. 
Celluloid Button, Buckle and 

Novelty Mfg. Induatry 
Cement Industry 
Chemical Mfg. Industry 
Chewing Cvim Industry 
Chilled Car Wheel Industry 
China Clay Producing Ind. 
Chinaware & Porcelain Mfg. Ind. 
Cigar Container Industry 
Cigarette, Snuff, Chewing, & 

Smoking Tohacco Mfg. Ind. 
Cigar Mfg. Ind. 

Cinders, Ashes & Scavenger Tr. 
Clay & Shale Roofing Tile Ind. 
Clay Drain Tile Mfg. Ind. 
Clay Machinery Ind. 
Cleaning & Dyeing Trade 
Clock Mfg. Ind. 
Cloth Reel Industry 
Coal Dock Induatry 
Coat & Suit Industry 



167 


66 


88 


24 


6 


1 






1 




11 


4 


4 


8 




66 


16 


36 


11 


4 


8 


6 


2 






48 


8 


36 


1 


3 


7 


2 


3 




2 


5 


1 


2 


1 


1 


310 


114 


142 


22 


32 


63 


21 


42 






483 


143 


217 


53 


70 


8 


1 


7 






107 


46 


53 


3 


5 


10 


4 


4 


1 


1 


60 


26 


23 


6 


5 


9 


3 


6 






1 


1 








39 


10 


24 


3 


2 


10 


5 


5 






14 


1 


8 


4 


1 


15 


7 


6 


2 




22 


5 


6 


7 


4 


40 


11 


26 


2 


1 


109 


25 


67 


11 


6 


2 




1 


1 




11 


6 


4 




1 


3 


2 


1 






34 


11. 


18 


2 


3 


25 


5 


12 


4 


4 


5 


1 


3 


1 




76 


22 


34 


11 


9 


147 


38 


60 


47 


2 


5 


1 


2 


2 




5 


3 


1 


1 




1 


1 








2376 


861 


905 


506 


104 


2 




2 






2 


1 




1 




10 


2 


3 


2 


3 


239 


58 


117 


59 


5 



9861 



-181- 
Cods Series TABLE XX 

HHA STATE OFFICE OOMPUIHT SEATISTICS 
HUMBER OF LABOR CASES, BY CODE AND METHOD OF DISPOSITIOT 
Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Codes 



Method of Disposition 
Total JLfttftated Ko Violation Dropped Pending 



Coated Abrasives Industry 1 
Cocoa & Chocolate Mfg. Ind. 26 
Coffee IndTiatry 59 
Coin Operated Machine Ufg. Ind. 29 
Collapsible Tube Industry 3 
Commercial Aviation Industry 3 
Commercial Breeder & Hatchexy Ind. 98 
Commercial Fixture Ind\i3try 130 
Commercial Refrigerator Ind, 61 
Comnercial Vehicle Body Ind. 42 
Compressed Air Industry 7 
Concrete Uason|bry Industry 36 
Concrete Pipe Mfg. Ind. 23 
Construction Industry 3603 
Building Granite Industry 4 
Cement Gun Contractors 12 
Construction News Service Ind. 27 
Cork Insulation Contracting Ind. 1 
Electrical Contracting lud. 437 
Elevator Mfg. Industry 16 
General Contractors Ind. 85 
Heating, Piping & Air Condi- 
tioning Contracting Ind. 118 
Hi^way Contractors Ind. 13 
Insulation Contractors Ind. 17 
Zalamien Industry 8 
Marble Contracting Ind. 1 
Mason Contracting Ind. 74 
Painting, Paperhanging and 

Decorating Contracting Ind. 601 
Platering & Lathing Contracting 

Industry 383 

Plumbing Contracting Ind. 1811 
Resilient Flooring Contracting 

Industry 
Roofing & Sheet Metal Contracting 

Industry 
Terrazo & Mosaic Contracting 

Industry 
Tile Contractors Ind. 
Wood Floor Contracting Ind. 
Construction Machinery Distrib- 
uting Trade 



11 



303 



1 
12 

31 

10 

3 

49 

25 

20 

23 

2 

15 

12 

1521 

1 

3 

6 

1 

155 

4 

26 

40 
7 
9 
2 
1 

34 

243 

143 
449 



127 



11 

23 
5 

3 
33 
70 
29 
12 

2 
13 

9 
1471 

3 

6 
16 

208 

11 

47 

58 

a 

6 
1 

29 

243 

156 
540 



147 



4 


2 


2 


36 


13 


20 


12 


3 


8 



15 



1 


4 


5 




11 


3 


9 


7 


28 


7 


9 


3 


3 


4 


3 




2 


6 


2 




323 


288 


1 


2 


1 


4 


49 


25 




1 


3 


9 


9 


11 




3 


1 


1 


1 


4 


3 


8 


58 


57 


40 


44 


144 


98 




1 


9 


20 


3 






1 


3 


1 



9861 



-182- 



Code Series TABLE JZ 

HHA STATE OPPICE COUPIAINT STATISTICS 
NUMBER OF LABOH CASES, BY COIE AND METHOD OP DISPOSITION 
Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



SStSSA. 



Method of Disposition 
Total Ad.iu8ted No Violation Dropped Pending 



Cooking & Heating Appliance Mfg. 

Industry- 
Copper Industry 

Copper & Brass Mill Products Ind. 
Cordage & Twine Industry 
Cork Industry 
Com Cob Pipe Ind. 
Corani^ted & Solid Fiber Shipping 

Container Mfg. Ind. 
Corset & Brassier Industry 
Cotton Cloth Glove Mfg. Industry 
Cottom Garment Industry 
Cotton Ginning Machinery Ind. 
Cotton Pickery Industry 
Cotton Textile Industry 
Cotinter Type Ice Cream Freezer 

Mfg. Industry 
Country Grain Elevator Ind. 
Crown Mfg. Industry 
CiMshed Stone, Sand & Gravel and 

Slag Industry 
Curled Hair Mfg. Industry 
Cylindrical Liquid Tight Paper 

Container Industry 
Daily Newspaper Publishing 

Business 
Dental Goods & Equipment Ind. 

and Trade 
Rental Laboratory Industry 
Die Casting Mfg. Industry 
Distilled Spirits In'iustry 
Distilled l^lrits Rectifying Ind. 
Dog Food Industry 
Domestic Frei^t Forwarding Ind. 
Dowel Pin Manufacturing Ind. 
Drapery A Upholstery Trimming 

Industry 
Dreas Mfg. Industry 
Dropped Forging Industry 
Dry and Polishing Mop Mfg. Ind. 
Dry Color Mfg. Ind. 
Dry Goods Cotton Batting Ind. 
Earthenware Mfg. Ind. 



46 


11 


27 


5 


3 


4 


2 


1 




1 


34 


6 


16 


10 


2 


70 


17 


39 


14 




8 


3 


4 


1 




1 




1 






36 


12 


17 


4 


3 


95 


33 


36 


20 


6 


50 


21 


21 


3 


5 


1160 


546 


466 


127 


21 


1 


1 








4 


3 


1 






184 


36 


98 


48 


2 


1 


1 








69 


36 


22 


6 


5 


1 






1 




474 


213 


190 


39 


32 


2 




1 




1 



156 



42 



93 



18 



18 


10 


7 




1 


153 


75 


54 


17 


7 


12 


2 


9 




1 


51 


22 


18 


4 


7 


53 


30 


15 


1 


7 


11 


8 


1 




2 


76 


31 


31 


10 


4 


1 




1 






34 


7 


11 


13 


3 


409 


144 


176 


87 




6 


1 


A 


1 




1 


1 








6 


3 


2 




1 


1 




1 






22 


9 


9 


2 


2 



Ood* Serlss 



-183- 
TABLS XX 
VM STATE OFFICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS 
BDMBBH OF LABOR CASES, BY CODE AHD METHOD OF DISPOSITIC T 
Total of all Offices, Octo\)ep, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Codeq 



Method of Disposition 
Total A fj.l usted Ifo Violation Drop-ped Pending 



Zlectric & Neon Si@a Ind. 
Electric Hoist & Monorail 

MfS. Ind. 
Electric Storage & Vet Primary 

Battery Mfg. Ind. 
Electric Mfg. Ind. 
Electrotyping & Stereotyping 

Indtistry 
End Grrain Strip Wood Block Ind. 
Envelope Ind. 
Excelsior & Excelsior Products 

Industry 
Expanding & Specialty Paper 

Products Industiy 
Fabricated Metal Products Ind. 
Fan A Blower Industry 
Fazn Equipment Industry 
Feed Mfg. Industry 
Feldspar Industry 
Fertiliser Industry 
Fibre & Metal Work Clothing 

Button Industry 
Fibre Can & Tube Industry 
Fibre Wallboard Industry 
Fire Extinguishing AppliaJice 

Mfg. Industry 
Fisheries Industry 
Atlantic Mackrel Fishing Ind. 
Blue Crab Industry 
California Sardine Processing Ind. 
Fresh Oyster Industry 
New England Fishing Ind. 
Fishing Tackle Industry 
Flag Manufacturing Ind. 
Flat SLass Mfg. Ind. 
Flaroping Products Ind. 
Floor Machinery Ind» 
Floor & Wall Clay Tile Ind. 
Fluted Cop, Pan Liner & Lace 

Paper Industry 
Folding Paper Box Industry 



108 



77 

745 

38 

6 

32 

24 

3 
HI 

1 
73 

139 

2 

72 

6 
9 
1 

8 
266 
1 
4 
2 

30 
1 

28 
3 
5 
8 
3 

25 



92 



31 

1 

39 

213 

12 

3 

12 

10 

2 

410 

36 

60 

12 

1 
3 



1 
77 

1 
1 
3 

13 
2 

5 

3 

12 

1 
39 



60 



31 

385 

17 

3 

13 



391 

1 

33 

52 

1 

45 

4 
5 
1 

6 

140 

1 

2 

16 
1 
8 

1 
1 

11 

6 
40 



2 



15 



5 


2 


111 


.-« 


8 


1 








4 






92 


68 




3 


11 


16 






^ 


3 











40 



11 

3 
1 



1 

9 

1 
1 



4 
2 

2 

15 



9861 



-184- 
Code Series lEABLE XZ 

HM STATE OFFICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS 

NUMBER OF LABOH CASES, BT CODE AND METHOD OF DISPOSITION 

Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Qodes 



Method of Disposition 
Total Adjusted No Violation Dropped Pending 



Pood Dish aad Pulp & Paper 

Plate Industry 
Foundry Sjq)ply Industry 
Fresh Water Pearl Button Ind* 
Fullers Earth Prodacing and 

Marketing Industry 
Funeral Service Industry 
Funeral Supply Industry 
Fur Dealing Trade 
Fur Dressing & Fur Dyeing Ind. 
Fur Manufacturing Ind. 
For Trapping Contractors Ind» 
Furniture & Hoor Wax & polish 

Industry 
Furniture Mfg. Ind. 
Terminal Grain Elevators 
Garter, Suspender & Buckle 

Mfg. Industry 
Gas Appliances & Apparatus Ind. 
Gas Code Industry 
Gasoline Pusip Mfg. Ind. 
Gear Mfg. Industry 
Glass Container Industry 
Glazed & Fancy Paper Industry 
Grain Exchanges & Members Thereof 
Graphic Arts Industry 
Intalglo Printing Process Group 
Lithographic Printing Process 6r. 
Belief Printing Process Group 
Trade Mounting & Finishing Ind. 
Gray Iron Foundry Industry 
Grinding Wheel Industry 
Gummed Label Embossed Seal ^nd. 
Gumming Industry 
Gypsum Industry 
Hair & Jute Felt Industry 
Hair aoth Mfg. Industry 
Handkerchief Industry 
Hardwood Distillation Ind. 
Hat Manufacturing Ind. 
Hatters Fur Cutting Ind. 
Heat Exchange Industry 
Hide & Leather Working Machinery 

Industry 



7 


3 


3 


1 




4 


2 


2 






59 


7 


18 


31 


:9 


8 


2 


5 




1 


205 


80 


96 


15 


14 


99 


42 


40 


8 


9 


25 


8 


10 


6 


1 


76 


15 


39 


16 


6 


?SVS 


78 


155 


87 


13 


9 


4 


3 




2 


28 


12 


9 


6 


1 


904 


358 


373 


96 


77 


42 


4 


23 


9 


6 


48 


13 


24 


9 


2 


35 


15 


13 


5 


2 


10 


1 


7 


2 




9 


6 


2 




1 


9 


4 


4 




1 


63 


26 


34 


2 


1 


14 


5 


9 






12 


3 


8 




1 


1440 


459 


631 


231 


119 


17 


7 


5 


3 


2 


18 


11 


6 




1 


1199 


536 


426 


166 


71 


2 




2 






178 


76 


82 


12 


8 


6 


3 


3 






9 


4 


4 


1 




1 








1 


5 


2 


1 




2 


7 


3 


4 






9 




7 


1 


1 


57 


21 


25 


9 


2 


12 


1 


11 






121 


40 


65 


11 


5 


5 


1 


3 


1 




9 


2 


6 


1 





9861 



-185- 



Code Series T&BLS ZX 

VBX STiTE 07FICX COUPMINT STATISTICS 

BDUBEB Of LASOB GASES, BY COBE AND MBTHOS OF DISPOSITIOH 

Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Cod*e 



Method of Disposition 
Total AHlTiated go Violation Dro-pped Pending 



1 

355 

4321 

194 

28 

1033 

66 

11 

1 

25 

9 



Ebrse Hair Dressing Indtistry 
Horse fhoe and Allied Producing 

Ufg. Ind. 
Hosiery Indostry 
Hotel Industry 
Honsetaold Goods Storage and 

Moving Trade 
Household Ice Refrigerator Ind. 
Ice Industry 
Ice Cream Cone Industry 
latported Date Packing Ind. 
laiported Green Olire Industry 
lBQ)orting Trade 
Industrial Pumace Mfg. Ind. 
Industrial Oil Vomer Equipment 

Mfg. Ind. 
Industrial Safety Equipment 

Industry & Trade 
Industrial Supplies & Machinery 

Distributing Trade 
lon-Perrous Ingot Metal Ind. 
Industry of Collective Mfg. for 

Door>to-Door Distribution 
Infant's & Children's fear Ind. 
Inland later Carrier Trade 

(H.T. Canal System) 
Insecticide & Disinfectant Mfg. 

Industry 
lasolation Board Industry 
Investment Bankers 
Iron & Steel Industry 
Knitted Outerwear Ind. 
Lace Mfg. Ind. 
Ladder Mfg. Ind. 
Ladies Handbag Ind* 
Laundry Trade 
Laimdry & Dry Cleaning 

Machinery Mfg. Industry 
Lead Industry 
Leather Industry 
Leather & Woolen K nit Glove 
Industry 



38 
7 

18 

126 



12 

1 

25 

213 

232 

40 

11 

166 

1041 

18 

22 

289 

75 



1 

119 
1534 

82 
11 

423 
10 

4 

10 
5 



14 
3 

6 
39 



6 

9 
48 
64 
16 

5 

68 

253 

6 

5 

107 



176 
1771 

74 

12 

442 

42 

5 

1 

5 

3 



18 



18 
3 

10 
54 



4 

1 

11 

137 

124 

18 

6 

63 

387 

12 

8 

150 

37 



42 


18 


904 


112 


19 


19 


3 


2 


123 


45 


3 


11 


1 


1 


7 


S 




1 



1 




1 




6 




1 




1 


1 


21 


12 


2 




1 


1 


5 




23 


5 


31 


13 


4 


2 


23 


12 


347 


54 


7 


2 


9 


23 



16 



9861 



Code Series 



Co dea 



-186- 
X4BI.S ZX 
mk STATE OFFICE COUPUINT STCiTISTICS 
BUUBEB 07 LABOR GASES, B7 CODE ASS METHOD OF DISPOSITIOV 
Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - Kay, 1935 (Continued) 

Uethod of DispoBition 
Total Adjusted go Violation Dropped Pending 



Leather Cloth & Lacquered Fahrica 
Industry 

Legitimate Full Length Dramatic 
Theatrical Industry 

Lightning Hod Mfg. Industry 

Li^t lewing Industry except 
Garments Industry 

Lime Industry 

Limestone Industry 

Linoleum & Felt Base Mfg. Ind« 

Linseed Oil Mfg. Ind. 

Liquefied Gas Industry 

Live Poultry Industry of Metro- 
politan New Tork Area 

Loose Leaf & Blank Book Ind* 

Luggage & Fancy Leather Goods 
Industry 

Lumber & Timher Products Ind. 

Lye Industry 

Macaroni Industry 

Machine Applied Staple & 
Stapling Machine Inclustry 

Machine Knife & Allied Steel 
Products Indtistry 

Machine Tool & Equipment Distri- 
butors Industry Trade 

Machine Tool & Forging Machinery 
Industry 

Machined Waste Mfg. Industry 

Machinery & Allied Products Ind, 

Malleable Iron Industry 

Malt Industry 

Malt Products 

Manganese Industry 

Mfg. & Wholesale Surgical Ind. 

Marble Quarrying & Finishing Ind. 

Marine A-uxiliary Machinery Ind. 

Marking Devices Industry 

Mayonaise Industry 



10 


4 


3 


2 


1 


52 


11 


19 


19 


3 


2 




1 




1 


44 


11 


29 


2 


2 


34 


7 


a 


4 


2 


27 


6 


14 


2 


5 


8 


3 


4 




1 


2 


1 


1 






7 


3 


2 


2 




1 








1 


11 


1 


8 




2 


255 


115 


86 


33 


21 


2809 


762 


1445 


493 


109 


2 


1 


1 






115 


41 


54 


9 


XI 


6 


2 


1 




3 


6 


2 


4 






12 


7 


3 


2 




26 


10 


12 


3 


1 


24 


3 


21 






150 


62 


72 


8 


8 


38 


5 


30 


2 


1 


1 


1 








7 


2 


4 




1 


1 




1 






14 


6 


5 


2 


1 


8 


7 


1 






8 


1 


4 




3 


36 


12 


19 


4 


1 


31 


12 


12 


5 


2 



9861 



.187- 
Code Series ZAELI ZZ 

HM STATS OFFICE COUPUIST STATISTICS 
HUMBER 07 LABOR CASES, BT CODE ABD KETHOD OT DISPOSITION 
Total of all Offices, Octoter, 1933 - Kay, 1935 (Continued) 



s^aeg 



Method of Disposition 
Total Ad,1tt8ted So 71olation Dr "px""^ fmAinp 



Mechanical Packing Ind. 
Medium & Low priced Jewelry Mfg. 
Men's Clothing Industry 
Men's Heckwear Industry 
Merchandise Warehousing Tr. 
Merchant & Custom Tailoring Ind. 
Metal Itching Industry 
Metal Hat Die & Wood Hat Blodc 

Industry 
Metal Hospital Tomiture Mfg. 

Indnatry 
Metal Lath Industry 
Metal Tank Industry 
Metal Treating Industry 
Metal Window Industry 
Mica Industry 

Milk Filtering Materials Ind. 
Millinery Industry 
Millinery & Dress frimning Braid 

and Textile Industry 
Mop Stick Industry 
Motion Picture Industry 
Motion Picture Laboratory Ind« 
Motor Bub Industry 
Motor Fire Apparatus Mfg. Ind. 
Motor Vehicle Maintenance Tr. 
Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade 
Motor Vehicle Storage & Parking 

Trade 
Motorcycle Mfg. Industry 
Music Publishing Industry 
Musical Merchandise Mfg. Ind. 
Mutual Savings Banks 
Harrow Fahrica Industry 
natural Organic Products Ind. 
Heweprint Industry 
nickel 4 Hidcel Alloys Industry 
Son-FerrouB & Steel Convector Ufg. 

Industry 
Son-Fsrrous Foundry Industry 
Jottingham Lace Curtain Ind. 
novelty Curtains, Draperies and 

Bedspreads Industry 



2 

247 

351 
156 
112 
320 
9 



1 
3 

42 
1 
8 

10 
4 

329 

41 

4 

1944 

22 

210 

9 

194 

6060 

3327 
4 
2 

15 
2 

48 
2 
8 
2 
4 

53 
4 

99 



91 

121 
45 
38 

121 
4 



1 

13 

4 

5 

4 

89 

10 

2 

725 

14 

62 

3 

102 

3152 

1239 
2 

7 

20 

2 

1 
2 

17 
3 

31 



2 

107 

167 

72 

53 

151 

4 



24 

4 
3 

166 

13 
2 

888 

4 

102 

6 

52 

2163 

1201 
2 

6 

1 

27 

1 
4 

2 

25 
1 

40 



34 


15 


56 


7 


28 


11 


16 


5 


15 


33 




1 





2 

5 
1 


2 




50 


24 


15 


3 


232 

3 

33 


99 

1 

13 


6 
417 


34 
328 


715 


172 


2 

1 
1 

1 


2 

1 
1 
1 


6 


5 


17 


11 



9861 



-188- 
Code Series lASLS XZ 

mti SUTB OPFICB COMPLAINT STATISTICS 
SUllIBER OF LABOR CASES, B7 CODE ASD METHOD 01 DISPOSITION 
Total of all Offices, October, 1923 - yay, 1935 (Continued) 



SsMjl 



Total Adjusted 



Method of Disposition 
Ho Violation Dropped Pending 



Office Eqalpment Mfg. Ind« 

Oil Burner Industry 

Open Paper Drinking Cup Industry 

Optical Mfg» Industry 

Optical Retail Trade 

Optical Wholesale Ind* & Trade 

Ornamental Moulding, Carving and 
Taming Industry 

Outdoor Advertising Trade 

OxyMAcetylene Industry 

Pacific Coast Dried Fruit Ind. 

Packaged & Processed Cheese Ind. 

Package Medicine Industry 

Packa^ng Machinery Ind. & Trade 

Paint, Varnish & Lacquer Mfg. Ind* 

Paper & Pulp Industry 

paper Bag Mfg. Ind* 

paper Disc Milk Bottle Cap Ind. 

Paper Distributing Trade 

Paper Makers Felt Industry 

Paper Making Machine Builders 

paper Stationery & Tablet Mfg. Ind. 

paperboard Industry 

pasted Shoe Stock Ind. 

Peanut Butter Industry 

Pecan Shelling Industry 

Perfume, Cosmetics & Other 

Toilet Preparations Mfg. Ind. 
Petroleum Industry 
pharmaceutical & Biological 

Mfg. Industry 
Photo-Sngraving Ind. 
Photographic Mount Industry 
photographic Mfg. Ind, 
photographic and Photo Finishing 
Piano Manufacturing Industry 
Pickle Packing Industry 
Picture Moulding & Picture 

Frame Industry 
Pipe Hippie Mfg. Industry 
Pipe Organ Industry 
Pleating, Stitching & Bonnaz & 

Hand Embroidery Industry 
Plumbs^ Crucible Industry 



65 


23 


39 


3 




89 


37 


35 


10 


7 


3 




3 






76 


18 


47 


7 


4 


33 


11 


16 


5 


1 


30 


12 


16 


1 


1 


10 


1 


6 


2 


1 


45 


16 


27 




2 


15 


6 


7 




2 


9 


3 


6 






3 




1 




2 


32 


12 


16 


3 


1 


5 


3 


2 






93 


37 


42 


8 


6 


184 


38 


104 


24 


18 


43 


7 


27 


4 


5 


10 


1 


5 


2 


2 


91 


42 


36 


7 


6 


1 








1 


6 


1 


3 




2 


22 


8 


8 


3 


3 


18 


6 


8 


3 


1 


9 


4 


3 


1 


1 


16 


9 


6 




1 


10 


3 


4 


3 




96 


26 


37 


15 


18 


128 


40 


33 


53 


2 


7 


2 


3 


1 


1 


58 


32 


19 


3 


4 


6 




5 


1 




13 


3 


9 


1 




244 


93 


97 


35 


19 


15 


7 


5 


3 




51 


20 


13 


6 


12 


54 


19 


19 


10 


6 


8 


3 


5 






8 


4 




2 


2 


212 


40 


53 


104 


15 


3 


1 


2 







9861 



-189- 
Cod* Series XA3LE ZZ 

HEA STATE OFHCE COUFlkim STATISTICS 
BDUBEB 07 LABOB CASES, BY COIE MD METHOD OF DISPOSITION 
Total of all Offices, Octoter, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Codes 



Method of Disposition 
Total Adjusted No Violation DroTjped Pending 



Pltttn'bing Fixtures Ind. 
?»rcelain Breakfast Furniture 

Assamltling Industry 
Pottery Supplies & Backwall & 

Badiant IndxLstry 
Powder Puff Ind. 
Precious Jewelry Producing Ind* 
Preformed plastic Products Ind* 
Preserve, Maraschino Cherry and 

Olace Fruit Industry 
Pretzel Industry 
Print Holler & Print Block Mfg. 

Industry 
Printers Hollers Industry 
Printing Equipment Industry 
Printing Ink Industry 
Private Home Study Schools 
Public Seating Industry 
Pump Manufacturing Indtistry 
punchboard Mfg. Industry 
Pyrotechnic Mfg. Industry 
Quicksilver Industry 
Badio Broadcasting Ind. 
Railway Brass Car & Locomotive 

Journal Bearings Industry 
Hallway Car Building Ind. 
HPiilway Safety Appliance Ind* 
Haw Peanut Milling Ind. 
Hayon & Silk Dyeing & Printing 

Industry 
Hayon & Synthetic Tarn Producing 

Industry 
Heady-made Furniture Slip 

Cover Industry 
Heady Mixed Concrete Industry 
Real Estate Brokers 
Reclaimed Rubber Mfg. 
Refractories Industry 
Refrigerated Warehouse Ind. 
Reinforcing Materials Fabricating 

Industry 
Restaurant Industry 
Retail Farm Equipment Industry 



94 


28 


42 


14 


10 


29 


4 


19 


3 


3 


7 




4 


3 




31 


13 


10 


8 


1 


70 


22 


38 


8 


2 


2 


1 


1 






25 


13 


8 


2 


2 


33 


9 


18 


1 


5 


7 


1 


5 




1 


4 


1 


2 


1 




13 


3 


7 


2 


1 


6 


1 


3 


2 




2 


1 


1 






11 


8 






3 


18 


8 


8 


1 


1 


3 




2 




1 


18 


9 


4 


4 


1 


2 


1 


1 






95 


46 


38 


5 


6 


1 


1 








20 


5 


13 


2 




3 


1 


2 






12 


1 


9 


2 




67 


26 


23 


13 


5 


34 


8 


23 


3 




25 


10 


10 


2 


3 


22 


6 


11 


4 


1 


102 


41 


39 


12 


10 


4 


1 


2 




1 


31 


6 


20 


2 


3 


50 


25 


12 


8 


5 


g 

14 


6 


7 


1 




14,664 
86 


6822 
43 


5073 
29 


2198 
9 


571 

5 



9861 



-190. 
Code SerieB TABLE XX 

HB^ STATE OITICE COUPIAINT STATISTICS 
HDMBER or LABOH CASES, BY CODE AND IfiTHOD OF DISPOSITION 
Total of ail Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Codes 



Method of Dlepesitlon 
Total Adjusted Ho Violation Dropped Pending 



Setail JPood & Srocery Trade 13,620 

Retail Jewelry Trade 227 

Retail Lisntoer Trade 653 

Retail Meat Trade 298 

Retail Monument Industry 89 

Retail Robber Tire & Battery Tr, 564 

Retail Solid Jael Industry 1273 

Retail Tobacco Trade 104 

Retail Trade 9483 

Retail Custom Millinery Trade 11 

Retail Drug Trade 734 

River & Harbor lajprovement Ind, 19 

Road Machinery Mfg. Industry 22 

Robe A jLllled Products Ind* 46 

Hock & Slag Wool Mfg. Industry 7 

Hock Crusher Mfg. Industi-y 1 

Rolling Steel Door Industry 1 

Roofing Granule Mfg. Industry 9 

Rubber Manufacturing Industry 171 

Rubber Tire Mfg. Industry 50 

Rug Chemical Processing Ind. 3 

Saddlery Manufacturing Industry 56 
Safety Razor & Safety Razor Blade 

Mfg. Industry 6 
Salt Producing Industry 25 
Sample Card Industry 44 
Sand Lime Brick Industry 3 
Sandstone Industry 2 
Sanitary & Waterproof Special- 
ties Industry 2 
Solitary Hapkin & Cleansing 

Tissue Mfg* Industry 1 

Savings Building & Loan Ass'ns. 11 

Saw & Steel Products Mfg. Ind. 3 
Schiffli, Hand Machine Embroidery 

Industry 52 

Scientific Apparatus Industry 45 
5crap Iron, Noiv-Ferrous Scrap 

Metal Industry 911 

"iecondary Aliiminum Industry 2 
secondary Steel Products Warehouse 



7483 

99 

2^ 

107 

37 

292 

495 

61 

4471 

4 

401 

10 

12 

16 

3 

1 

2 
65 
15 

2 
30 

3 

4 

13 

1 
1 



1 
2 



17 
13 

380 
1 



4432 

106 

343 

109 

38 

197 

590 

29 

4019 

5 

278 

7 

7 

22 

3 

1 

4 
81 
30 

1 
18 

1 
20 
11 

1 



7 
2 

21 
23 

350 

1 



1136 
17 
52 
18 
10 
35 
97 
5 

655 

34 

1 
6 
1 



3 

16 
5 



1 

1 

13 

1 



1 
1 

12 
7 

106 



569 

5 

38 

64 

4 

40 

91 

9 

338 

2 

21 

2 

2 

2 



2 
1 
7 
1 



2 
2 

75 
1 



9861 



-191- 
Cod* Series TABLE XX 

BBA. STATE OFFICE COMPUIHT STATISTICS 

SDMBEE OF LABOE CASES, BI CODE AND METHOD OF DISPOSITIOH 

Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Codes 



Method of Disposition 
Total Adjusted Ko Violation Dropped Pending 



Seed Trade 

Set-Up Paper Box Mfg. Ind. 
Sewing Machine Indiistry 
Shipboilding & Shiprepairing Ind. 
Shoe i, Leather Finish and Polish 

Industry 
Shoe Last & Shoe Fozn industry 
Shoe Machinery Indvistry 
Shoe Pattern Mfg. Industry 
Shoe Behuildlng Trade 
Shoulder Pad Mfg. Ind. 
Shovel, Dragline & Crane Ind. 
Shower Door Industry 
Silk Textile Industry 
Silvenrsire Mfg. Indastry 
Slate Indastry 
Slide Fastener Industry 
Slit Fabric Mfg. Indastry 
Stnall Anns & Ammunition Ind. 
anoking Pipe Mfg. Ind. 
Soap & Glycerine Industry 
Soft Fibre Mfg. Ind. 
Soft Lime Rock Industry 
Solid Braided Cord Industry 
Southern Bice Milling Ind. 
Special Tool, Die & Machine 

Shop Industry 
Specialty Accounting Mfg. Ind. 
Spice Grinding Ind. 
Spray painting & Finishing Equip- 
ment Mfg. Ind. 
Stained & Leaded Glass Ind. 
Stay Mfg. Industry 
Steam Heating Equipment Ind. 

Steel Casting Industry 

Steel Plate Fabricating Ind. 

Steel Tubular & Firebox Boiler 
Industry 

Steel Wool Industry 

Stereotype Dry Mat Industry 

Stock Exchange Firms 

Stone Finishing Machinery and 
Bqaipment Industry 

Structural Clay Products Ind. 



41 
263 

30 
115 

40 

26 

39 

15 

998 

11 

12 

1 

300 

17 

12 

4 

12 

5 

23 

72 

6 

1 

2 

11 

310 
8 
6 

2 
1 

28 

1 

37 

19 

U 
2 
1 

35 

1 
130 



22 

101 

9 

26 

14 
8 

16 

6 

356 

2 

6 

90 
9 
4 
3 
2 
1 
5 

21 



2 

6 

94 
4 
3 

1 

9 

10 
6 



11 

103 

15 

75 

22 

17 

21 

9 

386 

7 

2 

164 

13 

7 

7 

3 

15 

42 

6 



39 



183 
4 
1 



15 

1 

21 

12 

4 
2 

13 

1 
71 



2 
31 

1 
11 



225 
2 

1 

37 

3 

1 
3 

2 
6 



17 

1 

3 
1 



1 
15 



6 

28 

5 

3 

2 
1 
2 

31 

3 
1 
9 
2 
1 



1 
1 
3 



16 
1 

1 

1 

1 

5 
1 



14 



9861 



Code Series 



-192- 

lilBLB! XX 

HRA. STATE OFFICE COMPUINT STATISTICS 
NUMBEl OP lABOE CASES, BY CODE AND METHOD OF DISPOSITION 
Total of all Offices, Octoljer, 1933 - May, 1935 (Continued) 



Codes 



Total Adjusted 



Method of Disposition 
Ho Violation Dropped Pending 



Sulphonated Oil Mfg. Ind. 
Surgical Distritnitors Trade 
Surgical Dressing Industry 
Structural Steel & Iron 

Patricating Industry 
Table Oil Cloth Industry 
Tag Industry 
Talc & Soapstone Ind. 
Tank Car Service 
Tanning Extract Industry 
Terra Cotta Industry 
Textile Bag Industry 
Textile Examining, Shrinking, 

and Eefinishing Industry 
Textile Machinery Mfg. Ind. 
Textile Print Roller Engraving 

Industry 
Textile Processing Industry 
Throwing Industry 
Toll Bridge Industry 
Toy & playthings Industry 
Trailer Mfg. Industry 
Transit Industry 
Transparent Materials Convertors 

Industry 
Trucking Industry 
Utobrella Mfg. Industry 
Umbrella Frame & Haraware Mfg. 

Industry 
Undergarment & lle^lgee Ind. 
Underwear & Allied Products Ind. 
Unit Heater & Unit Ventilator Ind. 
Upholstery & Drapery Textile Ind. 
Upholstery Spring & Accessories 
Upward Acting Door Industry 
Used Textile Bag Industry 
Used Textile Machinery and 

Accessories Distributing Ind, 
Used Machinery and Equipment 

Distributing Industry 
Vacuum Cleaner Manufacturing 
Valve & Fittings Industry 
Vegetable Ivory Button Ind. 
Velvet Industry 
Venetian Blind Industry 



3 


1 


2 






9 


3 


5 




1 


10 


5 


4 


1 




22 


4 


16 


2 




6 




4 




2 


18 


4 


12 


1 


1 


3 




2 


1 




1 


1 








1 




1 






2 




2 






54 


16 


35 


3 




2 


2 








28 


12 


14 


1 


1 


1 


1 








103 


34 


44 


15 


9 


55 


9 


30 


12 


4 


5 




3 


2 




285 


96 


103 


69 


17 


14 


7 


3 


1 


3 


220 


55 


109 


36 


30 


6 


2 


2 




2 


3557 


1421 


1412 


413 


311 


24 


9 


13 


2 




5 


1 


1 


3 




256 


100 


114 


30 


12 


374 


89 


219 


54 


12 


11 


3 


5 


1 


2 


36 


7 


15 


10 


4 


20 


8 


10 


• 


2 


2 




2 






118 


53 


55 


7 


3 


7 


1 


1 


4 


1 


7 


3 


3 




1 


28 


11 


15 


1 


1 


39 


24 


14 


1 




2 


1 


1 






6 


1 


3 


1 


1 


8 


6 


1 


1 





9861 



Code Series 



-193- 
lABLE XZ 
HEA. STATE OFFICE COMPIAINT STATISTICS 
NUMBER or UBOB CASES. B7 C0I3E jjn) METHOD OF DISFOSITIOH 
Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 (ContimMi) 



Pp. Ap* 



Method of Disposition 
Total Ad.1usted No Violation Dro-pped Pending 



Titrified Clay Sewer Pipe Mfg. 

Isdl Paper Mfg. 

Warn Air Turnace Mfg. Ind. 

Washing & Ironing Machine Mfg. 
Industry 

Watch Case Mfg. Ind. 

Waterproof Paper Industry 

Waterproofing, Dampproofing, 
Caulking Compound Industry 

Waxed Paper Indastry 

Welt Mfg. Ind. 

Wet Mop Mfg. Indastry 

Wheat Hour Milling Industry 

Wholesale Automotive Trade 

Wholesale Coal Industry 

Wholesale Confectioners Ind. 

Wholesale Food & Grocery Trade 

Wholesale Fresh Fruit & Vege- 
table Distributing Trad^ 

Wholesale Monumental Granite 

Wholesale Monumental Marble 

Wholesale or Distributing Trade 

Charcoal & Package Fuel 

Fur Wholesaling & Distributing Tr. 

Wholesale plumbing & Heating 
Products 

Wholesale Tobacco Trade 

Window Glass Mfg. Industry 

Wine Industry 

Wiping Cloth Industry 

Women's Belt Industry 

Women's Neckwear & Scarf 

Wood Cesed Lead Pencil Ind, 

Wood Heel Industry 

Wood Plug Industry 

Wood Preserving Industry 

Wood Turning & Shaping Ind. 

Wooden Insulator Pin and Bracket 
Manufacturing Industry 

Wool Felt Mfg. 

Wool Textile Industry 

Wool Trade 

Wrecking & Salvage Industry 

least Indusl^ry 

Sot Beported 



9 

9 

38 

13 

11 

1 

1 

10 

2 

12 

208 

247 

10 

147 

1302 

594 

22 

1 

1270 

44 

3 

45 
108 

3 
69 
70 
59 

8 

6 
56 

1 
12 
34 

4 

5 
239 

4 
329 

8 
35i^ 



7 

5 

17 

4 
7 



1 
1 
1 
5 

101 
107 

4 

68 

533 

282 
15 

606 

15 

3 

17 

47 

1 

44 

28 

15 

3 

2 

25 

2 
13 

3 

3 
93 

2 
159 

4 
14 



2 

3 

19 

8 
1 

1 



7 
1 

3 

59 

95 

5 

53 

571 

233 
5 
1 

450 
25 



11 

37 

2 

15 

15 

27 

2 

4 

23 

1 

9 

14 

1 

2 

127 

1 

95 

3 

10 



1 
3 



1 


3 


16 


32 


23 


22 


1 




16 


10 


158 


40 


36 


43 




2 


160 


54 


2 


2 


15 


2 


10 


14 


2 


8 


22 


5 


12 


5 


1 


2 


1 


7 




1 


4 


3 



16 

1 
46 

10 



29 
1 
2 



9861 



-194- 
Code Series 

TABLE XX 

NRA STATE OFFICE COMPUINT STATISTICS 

NUMBER OF LABOR CASES, BY CODE AND METHOD OF DISPOSITION 
Total of all Offices, October, 1933- May, 1935 ( concluded) 

sJ The offices were officially actire from October 19, 1933, to 
*feT 27, 1935» Included are 14 adjusted, 57 no violation 
and 43 dropped cases accepted prior to Oc^ber 19, 1933. 



Prepared byJ 
Statistical Section 
Field Division, NRA 
March 20, 1936 



9861 



-195- 
lASU IT 

NRA STATE OFFICE (jOMPLAINTS STATISTICS 



Tirenty-five (jodea with Greatest number of Labor Complaints, -October. 1933-May, 1935 



^ane of ftoae 


Total 


Aajusted 


NO Violation 


Dropped 


pending 


Total 


90,001 


39,930 


34,593 


11,002 


4,476 


Bastaurant industry 


14,664 


6,822 


5,073 


2,198 


571 


Retail Food & Grocery 


13,620 


7,483 


4,432 


1,136 


569 


petal 1 Trade 


10,228 


4,876 


4,302 


689 


361 


construction industry 


6,977 


2,794 


2,961 


645 


577 


Motor vehicle Retail 


6,060 


3,152 


2,163 


417 


328 


Hotel Industry 


4,321 


1,534 


1,771 


904 


112 


Trucking industry 


3,557 


1,421 


1,412 


413 


311 


Baking Industry 


3,340 


1,466 


1,208 


402 


264 


Motor veh. Stg. & Pkg. 


3,327 


1,239 


1,201 


715 


172 


Lumber & Timber products 


2,809 


762 


1,445 


493 


109 


Graphic Arts Industry 


2,674 


1,013 


1,068 


400 


193 


Cleaning & Dyeing Ind. 


2,376 


861 


905 


506 


104 


Motion picture industry 


1,944 


725 


888 


232 


99 


Barber shop Trade 


1,620 


821 


563 


216 


20 


Boot & Shoe Industry 


1,584 


583 


770 


103 


128 


Whse. Distributing Trade 


1,317 


624 


475 


162 


56 


Whse. Food & Grocery 


1,302 


533 


571 


158 


40 


Retail solid Fuel 


1,273 


495 


590 


97 


91 


cotton Garment Industry 


1,160 


546 


466 


127 


21 


Laundry industry 


1,041 


255 


387 


347 


54 


ice industry 


1,033 


423 


442 


123 


45 


Shoe Rebuilding Trade 


998 


356 


386 


225 


31 


Fabricated Metals 


961 


410 


391 


92 


68 


Scrap iron-Non Ferrous Met. 


911 


380 


350 


106 


75 


Furniture Mfg. 


904 


358 


3W 


96 


77 



prepared by; statistical section. 
Field Division, NRA 
March 20, 1936 

9861 



-19o- 

Interpretation oC zir.e figures should be n, de onl" r.fter reference 
to census data to r.ccertain the typical size of estcblislii'ients covered 
"by the codes. It slioulc. be borne in mind that the fi|2:u.-_'es are very 
heavily vreighted ■;! bh co. "plclnts af^alnst firms in the Service and Dis- 
tributing Trades, "T.iicli v.'or.ld chrracteristicall^" s'r.ov a small number of 
employees. 

(a) Liiii b'-ti o ns of the Reporting Savole . 'Pheve are limita- 
tions in the size of t'-.e reporting sariple. Of the totrl labor complaints, 
cases in 'vhich the si'ze of the respondent's or"r,ni-r,tion v;a.s not reported 
constituted 36. 1 per cent. For individually operrted establishments, 
using one case per establishment, 3'+«7 per cent of the establishments 
show no size data for labor crses. For all ces.es against chains and com- 
binations 20. U per cent ■■ore not reported. Adjusted labor cases showed 
27.7 per cent cases not reported, as contrasted ^-ith 3S.S per cent for 

no violation cases, ^S.^ pei* cent for dropped cr-.ses, and '^h,l per cent 
for pending cases. 

The perce:^t e of units reported as belongin ; to chains and comr- 
binations to total reporter, cases is 3.7. 'Jsing only first complaints 
against respondents chains and combinations co:-^prise 2.S per cent. Chains 
comprise 2.6 per cent and branch plants and sales offices t\7o- tenths- of- 
one per cent. These fiu-.-es for branch pla.nts and branch sales offices 
are probably low because the synbals for reporting these --ere not included 
in the original instructions. The figures for chains are probably some- 
wha.t low also, as five states reported no data on cha.ins. 

( b ) Inc.i vidu-ally Operated Establishmen ts. 

This couiit is based on individually operated estaolishments, 
and represents eirperience for all State Offices combined. It includes 
all normal cases, but differs from the basic fi'.-urcs sho'-'n in Table I, 
by the number of chadnc and combination-, which h^^vc boer. reportec! separat- 
ely. First and suxcessive complaints agp.inst respondents are shovm 
separately. First co::plaints prese-.t a r,e;A-urc of size of respondents 
based on one entry per esta.blip..ri-.::b rcgar^Less of the nii;;jer of success- 
ive complaints against that esi-acl: s^urenr . The 2j'J labor cases first 
classified as trade practice and subsequei.tly foiuid to be labor are not 
i nclude d. 

The su-miary of si:-.e figures for independent!: ■ operated establishments 
shows that the most t:;-pical respondent employed fror: 2 to 5 employees. 
Discounting cases in which sii^e was not reported, 3U.S per cent of the 
total cases were shown as having 2 to 5 workers. IPift- per cent of the 
cases had aT:proxir.iately S or fewer employees. The ration of employees 
to establishments in the oO largest industries covered a^f the codes 
was S,2 (*) These fi',u.:.-es are weighted by the 3I -lanuf a.cturing codes in 
which the average v/as -!-9.5 employees. Service tr.-des showed an average 



(*) Scope of Inriiistries tmder approved Codes, Post Code Analysis Publica- 
tion I'lo. 60, llarch 25, 193'+, and supplements llo. 60-A, Hay k, 193*+. 
and No. 6O-L, October 6, 193^« 

9S6l 



-197- 



m 
o 

EH 



ITl 






w 
O 



B 
O 

o 

■H 
<M 
IH 

o 



•3 

o 

3 



<4 o 

« 
s 



o 



O 

3 



»1 






p, a 






to R r-i t^ Irv r<^ iH in 



to 






to 



to 



1^ 



s 



to 



» 



JOWf^to(ritolr\ 






Uf§ 



r>^to CM to^ a\^^ 



CVI 






iH o^K^to t^r-e>^t-r1 w ifjvo 

iH O (Ti to US-d' KN K\ r-l i-l VO 



J-l SvD OMOtO <T\^ ffvK\C\l H to 
O to r— Ifva' >.0 CTv^ ^ r< rH <r\ 



o to 



ir> 



fHVO 



CU 1-1 Q to — 






g. 



r-o iTiCVJMD ir>r— ir>to r-to w 

K^ as r— irvJ3 r-t K^U^ O ITi ^ 
M3 r-i to O l^<ril'^'<^H »^ 



tOO^-Or^<7^o^%-- 
^ rH 0^'J^ 1^ O to 

r<^cJcvl ri iH 









& 



l-^L:^t^TcJ'to^Wf-^ pi 



t>>r 

o 



a 
e 

o « 



t 



1 ^ 



o 



o 

» irii-t 




rt J) H O Q Q< 






^ 



>> 

Pi 

■3 

•H 
O 

■rt 
<M 

o 

« 
u 



e 
o 

o 

I 




9861 



-198- 









/a 
o 

o 
O 



(0 



E4 
CO 












a 
■S 
o 



4> 

■ 
f 

o 
u 



e 
u 



to (1 

o 






CO 

: 

Vl 

I 

9861 



o 
o 

u 
o 

I 



SP 






•H 


(r> 


^^ rH <M ITM— OJ OMTir- 1 1 |0 




ir> 


f<-lCM (M CV) t<- 


f^ 


rH 




9 






PK 






« 






^- 


CM t\I^ ^^ SI r-l H ^ 


N 


s 


m 


iH 


n 






fl 






o 








g 


•H vA '^ ir\3 i^v^ ^ roirs i-i to 


i-i 


00 


rOCM Oi r^ r^ (<■ 


o 


• 




•H 


r-4 




►• 






O 






» 












& 


-^f&SS^SS^RrtS^S^??* 





i-t 


^f^^<^r^^-^ rt f 




w 




^•^ 






•a^s 


^ 


(Vl (U H rH lf«^ r^Q lr^O H h-W) 


•p • ^ • 


ir\ 


o ,o « «> 


« 




^|« s 


ni 




B • a 






tH 


vX> 


iTiwj ^^K^3 5p 3 * ir>o r^^ 


« 


K\ 


4* 


jt 


o 


* 




t* 


Jt 




m 




• 


• 
















a • o O itf 
• • 5 O • 




• S QQ0-04> 


. •»• 9 




r-1 Q. O CM ITNr^ O - O 

g. &ur\r-i o o o 4* lr^ 5 
as ooo4>4>'t> pE 

Boo****-^ r^ U 


|4 'H O 




■3 


1 «1 


« 


9 *> ■** rHr-li-IOOtf 


t< 


iaocvj.o>-tc\iir>iHC\jLrt -ots 






i-i 



- 

01 O K\ 

•d 'H ^ ^ 

" ■*» O r-l 

0) 

■rt •«» jq 

« eS « Pi 
(4 4> 44 tf 

Pi n ^ a 









I 






o 

4* 

o 

o 



« 






% 



t 

m 

9 

o 

•H 
Vl 

JS 



'Si 



1 



-1?9- 

of 4.S employees per estr.olishment, avid the avc;'.;.,_:;e for 11 DistrilDuting 
codes Hr3,s 3»S. A 'ir'cellj.neous f;roup of 11 codes i;vc?."Li.ding Tracking and 
Construction sho'vcd r,n rxevsre of 11.1 employees. 

The l.",rgest rir-dier of complaints reported -.-ere tuier the Restaurant 
Code and the second l.rrerjt under the IRetail li'ooc''. ruC. Grocery. The ratio ^ 
of employees to est. lilif.hiientr, in these industries ero k.l and U.U, 
respectively. Lr.oor co: plaints rei^orted in 11 Service trr-des totalled 
25,758, or 21.7 per ce vt of the tot-l Ip'bor con -Irinto, 

A Irr-.^e number of co -/d.^ints acpinst estr'blic'r.rents rith no employ- 
ees are sho^n not to oe , ctv.al violr.tions. 

Investigation of original reports sho-^s that a lar-fje proportion of 
adjusted complaints ,-y-;ai'.ir.t establishraent s havin£: mo ciployees were Barber 
Shop cases. (*) A mr'.ocr of these concerned la.bo:' oiiter violations. The 
majority of these "'ere reported \)y the Massp-clniaetts Office. 

5 . Esta'olishuents Q-^errted as Units of Chain s or Coui hinations. 

Separate co v^il.tions of fii:£;ur.-.'S '-ere mar"-e for estrluishments oper- 
ated as units of chains or combinations, so that those- ::i:'ht be disting- 
uished froLi independent units, in determining the t-'-piccJ. violator, and 
also in mepsurin;; the inci''ence of wr.i:e re:- titbit ion oayrients on small 
establisliments (oce l^aole Vl) . 

A total of ;':"irr:t ■•.nd successive complaints ,- inst respondents is 
most representative fo:' chains since complaints r.;:;.inst a series of units 
belonging to chains -ere usually carried on one f.ochet number. Additional 
data shoT'ing counts for local, sectional, national cl-airs, branch plants 
and branch sales offices --.re available in the rocc s of the Field Divi- 
sion. 

6. Source o f Labo:- Co:; l aint s. .■- simmaiT cr^c.-inj t;-pical source 
of co^dplaints docketed by the'^-^ State Offices, ap-^c-rs in Table VII. 

The totals are ja-ed on all norm-xl labor co-'.-.l.-.ints docketed by 
State Offices, (er.cludin- :^37 cas^s ori-inrll:' -c;; or ted ,\s labor cases 
and subsequently found to be tr de ar -ctice caseu) . Cases subseuquently 
referred to the code authority, either on reference or in the first 
instance, are excluded, tuilnss fey '/ere a..--pin returned to the State 
Office for action, L'here ■:c--e relatively fen inst nc^s of that type. 

Grpnd totals cf ^-i- state offices shovr th,at a-c;>ro::inately the same 
niimber of adjusted cop; aints were filed by present employees and former 
employees. There -.rere, :..ov'ever, marked differences in the proportions 
reported bv indivioual offices. ?or ercaraple, rev York shows kok adjust- 
ed cases concerning "orecent eiTOloyees, as corpared -ith 32S concerning 



(*) Note there is so; e ruestion a?; to -hether Baroer Shop cases mi/:ht 
properly be considered code cases, since the labor provisions v;ere 
contingent upon the putting into effect of tr .e prctice area 
agreements 'JMch -ore never made. 

9S6l 



state Office Series 

-200- 

TASLl IIT 

I.E. A. SIAIX OITICS CCUPUZBT STi7ISTICS 

SOUBCI 

Labor Code Cases, Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - Hay, 1935 bJ 



a .— . : ■_.::,::■ 






Bb 






Sotorce of Complaiats 


Tqtal Cases 


Adjusted 


Violation 


Dropped 


Pending 


All sonroes 


118,677 


50.240 


47,312 


14,663 


6,462 


tguavyaoMM 


7,846 


2.021 


4,308 


1,141 


376 


Inployee (status imknovn) 


8,309 


2,928 


3,763 


1,179 


339 


Present eBployse 


37,794 


13.132 


10,413 


2,759 


1,501 


former emploTee 


29,880 


13,983 


10,018 


3,545 


3,334 


Competitor 


2,959 


939 


1,586 


331 


103 


Office staff 


14,388 


7,885 


5,039 


885 


589 


Code authority 


6,288 


2,288 


3,639 


912 


449 


State agency 


1,245 


501 


512 


152 


80 


aoT*t purchasing ageney 


317 


142 


137 


8 


30 


Labor union 


4,085 


1,609 


1,879 


423 


174 


Srade association 


781 


272 


389 


87 


33 


Other sources 


13,137 


4,399 


6,456 


1,877 


405 


Source unknown 


1,748 


151 


184 


1,364 


49 



The offices iwre officially actiye from October 19, 19i5»to May 37, 1935. 
Also included are 14 adjusted, 67 no violation, at! 43 dropped cases accepted 
prior to October 19, 1933« 



Prepared byt 
Statistical Section, 
Tield Division, SBA 
March 3, 1936 

9861 



I 



-201- 

former employees. Inclnnr. showed 2S2 adju'sted ccses concerning present 
employees and 678 concerning- foriaer employees. On the other hand, Mass- 
achusetts showed 72o adjusted cases against present e;iplo3''ees coBipared 
with U79 a ainst forner e-vployees. .The relationship is evidently p.ffect- 
ed by the nass conpliance program. . lo seens prolir.ole tha,t there were in- 
herent differences in reporting hetvreen offices, since Sa,n Francisco re- 
ports .5 perucent. while, Los Angeles sho'i-fs 66.0 per cent cases against 
former employees as co::pr.i-ed v/ith the total of forner and present employ- 
ees. 

B. Compliance Factors, "he taties which h-\ve been reviewed above show 
general totals which disclose the magnitude of the cor^pliance problems, 
and illustrate the general characteristic of it. I'ljiires ^^ere cited to 
show the provisions -lOst frequently violated, the source of the complaints, 
the size of the respondent's establishment, and t'ic proportion of employ- 
ees a.ffected by violation. These show general statistics of administra- 
tion of labor reguLr-.tions. 

The following ;:roiip of tables is devoted specifically to the problems 
of securing coraplia,nce. The fifoires can shovr only the ooserved results 
in terms of w.-ge restitution collected, and in ten:is o:.' the amount of time 
invested in adjusting cr.ces, with additional dc.tr. on nethods used in clos- 
ing causes. 

(a) ■..-age Ilestitution . The Compliance division attempted to secure 
restitution for both hoivr and wage cases. The ar.ount by which payments 
had failed to e coial the code minimum was usually nore easily ascertained, 
in spite of falsified records, than the correct anov.nt due for overtime. 
The issue conceriiin ■ overtime was confused, r"nce :ian;- codes provided no 
legal rate for ovcrti::e. The Compliance Division, ho--ever, made an 
effort to secure compensation with a penalty rr.'cc for illegal overtime 
worked. 

In the analysis of canes made after the Schechter decision, an 
effort was made to confine wage restitutio^ figxires to money which was 
actually paid. (*) 

National totals, -for the amount of w:^ge restitution collected, and 
the number of employees paid, in labor adjusted cases are shown in sum- 
mary in Table VIII, These figures represent collections from October I9, 
1933, to May 27, 1935, the period during which lulA State Offices were 
officially active. Included also, are 2? cases accepted prior to October 
19. 1933. "by other a;;encies for iCRA. 

1. Qualifications . The total of $3, 611,'; 39. CI reported in the 
present survey is to be contrasted with the cu;:ulrtive total of sta.tisti- 
cal reports between June 16, 193^. sJ^d. May 27, 1S35. o'-c" $3,'+6l, I86.9U on 



(*) Instructions dated Jm.ly 10, 193'., "tated that a'.ounts of restitution 
reported on adjusted car:.cs should ir-- dude amounts in ^loney or negotiable 
instruments actuall"/ secLired from the respondent. The figure for number 
of employees receiving restitution was to represent those rctually re- 
ceiving restitution, or in behalf of whom restiti^.tion funds were collect- 
ed by the State office includin.;^ employees not located, 

9S6l 



-203- 

code cases. That the inclusion of figures for ei.'^ht aclCitionsJ, months 
makes a negligihle difference in the total is the result of the fact that 
survey figures represent' actual payments, uhile hi-v.-eehlj'- .reports were 
sometimes infla,ted oy inclusion of '■loney due but not yet paid, "because 
the offices Mere attcriptin^- to make a .":ood efficiency rcting. 

j?igares reported here represent money collected on adjusted cases 
only. A snail proportion, prohably not over 5 per cent of the total of 
5140,642.76 \?age restitution collected on compror.ised cases, represents . 
collections on dropped rnd pending cases which should he added to the 
figures quoted above to -:ive total suras collected. 

There is an r.di.itionr.l qualification that it-- :e restitution funds in 
the possession of 13A St-te Offices on Hay 27, 15:15, but not disbursed • 
to employees subseouentl;-, are included in the totals quoted. 

ITurtherraore, the totrls include $235,908.11 paid in notes. This 
represents 6.5 per cent of the total collected on adjusted cases. Notes 
were used as the .nethcd of payment in 9^1 or 2.9 per cent of the cases. 
Notes have been counted at iPull value, although there is a possibility 
of default, particularly on any notes outstanding on Llay 27, 1935. (*) 

The figure of $112. 16 reported as the average a.-iount of restitution 
per case is an abnoriirlly high fi,gure affected b;'' some extremely large 
cases. For example, reference to Table IX shov.'s that the largest number 
of establisliments pa~"ing xr^re restitution enployed fron 2 to 5 workers, 
and that the avera,"e per case in this group wa.s $US,G9. The -arithmetic 
average cited above is influenced by 10 cases in establishments employing 
over 5|000, and averaging $601.00 per case, and by 1^2 cases, in firms 
with 501-1000 workers in which an average of $523,66 per case was paid, 

2 . Fro'oortion of Cases in which Restitution wa.s Not Collected . 
As shown in Table VIII, the-'e -fere 17,HlU cases in v.'hich no fifrures ^'ere 
quoted for amounts of r;- :e restitution paid, or number of enployees 
affected. These constitute '^k.h per cent of the total number of a.djusted 
cases shown in Table VIII, In addition, there were S55 cases in which 
no amount of restiti\tion wa.s reported, although the nunber of employees 
receiving restitution v:as shown. 

One approach to the problem of measuring the extent to which 
restitution might have oecn collected in the 17,UlU ca.ses is to exajnine 
the figures for the nonbers of hour and wage violations in proportion 
to the total number of cr.ces. As shown in Table II, a total of S5,235 
adjusted labor violations occurring in 50,311 cases vere reported. Of 
these violations 39j76S or U6,7 per cent were hour viola.tions, ^0,75^ 
or hl.Z per cent vrere wrge violp.tions, and 4,712 or 5»5 per cent were 
violations of general provisions. 



(*) The filmre for pmoxuxc paid in notes is i nil "ted slightly by the 

fact that onl"; one ::ethod of payment could be tabulated for a case, 
Those cases in wr.ich both notes and cash were used v/ere tabulated 
with the entire ar.ov^uit under notes, 

9S6l 



-203- 

l^earl;/ all how: civC. "cge violations are cf the t- -pe v;liich should 
carry wage reGtitiition, '2o ascertain the numher of caches nhich should 
carry vrare restitution, ho-.-ever, an unduplicated count of cases involv- 
ing either hour or ".vr:;e violations or both is reruireC, This figure is 
not available and car. oe a^;proxiaated only by ooservin,- that there vrere 
3^,22S adjusted caces involving hour violations, and l6, 0S3 in which 
there \7ere no hotir violrtions. There -Yere also 37,o23 adjusted cases 
involving vaf:e viol tions ?jid 12,6c2 cases in rhich no wage violations 
occurred. Since restitution vras collected in a nP".intir! of 33»153 cases, 
there were h,h'jG crocs in 'hich compensation for v.t e violations :rere 
not obtained. Usin..-; the scne reasoning, there -..-ere 1,073 cases in vhich 
hour violations -/ere not compensated. If \ie nakc the nost conservative 
assumption possible a,nf, consider that all the uncompensated hour cases 
occurred in cases in "hich wage violations '7ere also n:.ncoupensated, we 
have a iaininraiii of U,U7o adjusted cases in which w-ge restitution might 
have been obtained, but no collections were made. 

3. V^age ?.estitution, by Size of Sstab lishrient. A study of 
the amount of wa';© rentitution paid by individually operated establish- 
ments and by unite, belongings to: chains and corbinations, according to 
size of establisluient xic.z nade on the basis of figares reported by ten 
offices. (*) 

The tables v;ere based on all types of co'le cases, that is, 
normal code cases, cc.oes received by State Ofi'ioes froi: Compliance 
Bi strict Offices, reported cases sent on reference to Code Authorities 
prior to June 16, 1S3^, lioot and Shoe Cases originati:if: in the New Eng- 
land mass complipjicc progran, and duplicate entries for payment of wage 
restitution in kind. 3oth first and successive complaints against res- 
pondents are used. 

The Tables shoT restitution amounting to 0£32,339«87' Of this 
$801,476.96 or 96.3 per cent was reported as paid by individually oper- 
ated establishments and $30,262.91 or 3.9 per cent -.-as reported as paid 
by \initE of chains or combinations. Payments b" individually operated 
establishments -^ere m.ade in 7,073 cases or 96.2 per cent, and in units 
of chains and combinations by 276 cases or 3.8 per cent. It seems prob- 
able that the figures for chains and combinations is 1 o--, and that there 
are additional units bclon^'ing to chains or com.binations which^ ^-ere re- 
ported without special designation and so hmve been included with indi- 
vidually operated ect-blishments. 

Table IX -orcoents data on independent establishments only. 

U. '■■P-e ?.estit-.tion Summary. After a rcvie- of the figures 
one is impressed "ith the prrctical difficulties of the problem of ob- 
taining wage restitv.tion for all hour and wage violations that were 
docketed. The fact th.at the majority of the cases were against establish- 
ments emriloying 2 to 5 v.-orlrers, and that in these est; blishments all 



(*) Table IX A:-.ou-.t of destitution ;ind dumber of Zm._do:-ces Paid, by 

Size of Indo-oemdemtlr Operated Establisluients, 'Jen Selected Offices, 



9S6l 



I 



§ s 



.0 



n 

o b • 

MOO 

I § i 

• • 



8 

e 



S 



3 
I 



o 

3 



8 S 









*ta 



il 



il 



4^a 



t! • 



4* 
CO 8 • 



-204- 






K% 



V0 



5^ 



g 









8 IP?JL&&JPWSi8J?« I* 

<ri I w t-Q !f>r-ftij»i K\K\ to i.* 



IHsl^KflSii 



tr\rr\u\\xt\ayo ic\ 



aKMriH ie\jt irMnvevo 



K> 



irt I «« 






Jt HJl Hva »^w 



^»J 






li V « 

P*o»s^§ 







I 



I 



1^ o^ 






r "^ 
h as 

a h 
b o 



ii 



i 



H O 



o 



SI 

u 

4> a 

il 

s s 
• • 

• ■» 

4> • 

< s 

• 9 



la 



4> 






21 



9861 



-'ri.5- 

einployees tended to hr.ve experienced hour or \-r,-:e violations or "both, made 
it difficult to secure restiti.ition fron the respondent. Payroll records 
to establish the c:;tcnt of the violation 'vere often inadequate, and com- 
promise, usually inforn;il in such cases, had to 'be ado'oted. For the cas- 
es adjusted, the pr;"v.;cnt of an averac© of $2U,05 per employee and agree- 
ment for future co.olirnce ras a toon to the individuals. 

The proble:i of \7a{i;e restitution collections hrve "been discussed 
in Chapter V of Suction IQ, The above observations have been inserted 
here only to give er.phasis to the reported fi:'''urGs, 

5. Time I!le:;.ent in Closini'v Com olcaints. S'oecial attention T7as 
given to the time factors in the problem of iu-.ncLlin;: conplaints. First, 
information on ti.ie elapsed bet^TOen docketing the co:'.plrint, and starting 
the investigation was reported, (Table X) Second, the elapsed time be- 
t'.7een the beginnini^; of Uie investigation and the finrl closing of the 
case was indicated. (Taole Xl) ^rora these fii;Ai:.'es it xiaz possible to 
compute an average for the number of days elapsed before action was be- 
gun, and a second avcr:vje for time elapsed in closin.- the case after the 
investigation started, 

6. Ivieth o:". of Closinr Labor Cases . Cares inclu.ded in this table 
are normal cases investigated by the State Offices, e.-.cluding cases sent 
on reference to the Code -'.'Uthority prior to June lb, 133^* Both first and 
successive complaints aj;ainst respondents have been included, but certa,in 
categories of cases used in preceding tables hrve been omitted from the 
present table, A^.ion ■ these are h^S adjusted cases rnd ikk no violation 
cases, which were crooo-referenced to another case, and in which the 
method of closing was .• eported under that case. Cases docketed prior to 
October I9, 1933, ^'"sre also o-iitted. 

In the reportin.:; of cases, offices were instnActed to show the 
method deemed most effective in closing the case. Tor example, if both 
correspondence and the field adjuster were used, on'.'p the activities of 
the field adjuster -.•ere recorded as the laethod of closing the case. Sim- 
ilarly, office conference v/as quoted in preference to I'ield Adjuster. 
"Court suit instigr.ted b" complainant," was not included in the list of 
methods provided in tlie instructions, but in five caces notes to this 
effect were appended. It seems probable that this is not a representative 
f igare. 

National totals show that the field adjuster was used in clos- 
ing 5o.2 per cent of the adjusted cases and 50,2 per cent of the no vio- 
lation cases. Correspondence was ef:'ective in closinii' 2S,0 per cent of 
the no violation cases as compared with IU.8 per cent of the adjusted 
cases. 



9S6l 



f\ 



state Office Serl^. 

-206- 

CABIX Z 

V.1.1. SSA3X OTFICZ CQUPI^HT STillFISIICS 

Time Xle^sed between Docketing and Tirst Iction 

Labor Code Oases, Ibtal of all Offices, October, 1933 - ICajr, 1935. jj 



Sajrs elapsed 






Ho 






between doclostlag 


Total 


Adjusted 


Tlolatlon 


Dropped 


Pendlas 


and first action 












Total 


118,675 


50.238 


47,312 


14.663 


6.462 


Action on day 












of receipt 


17,263 


9,225 


6.079 


1.182 


777 


1 day 


18.494 


8.556 


6.782 


1.964 


1,192 


2 days 


12,212 


4,969 


5,229 


1.237 


777 


3 days 


7,845 


3,375 


3,109 


871 


490 


4 days 


7,142 


2,927 


2,994 


754 


467 


5-7 days 


19,025 


7.405 


8,128 


2.400 


1,092 


8-10 di|y« 


10,472 


4.096 


4.420 


1,428 


528 


11-14 days 


8.133 


3.314 


3.472 


998 


349 


15-28 days 


10.445 


4.174 


4.443 


1,440 


388 


Over 28 days 


4.628 


1,761 


2.067 


607 


193 


Hot reported 


3,016 


436 


589 


1.782 


209 



^ The offices were officially act Ire from October 19, 1933. o May 27, 1935. 
Inclnded are 14 adjusted. 57 no violation, and 43 Aropidd cases accepted 
prior to October 19, 1933, 



Prepared byt 
Statistical Section, 
Tleld Division, HEA 
March 3, 1936 

9861 



8t&t9 Offle« Series 

-207- 

fASU ZI 

I.I.A. 6IAZX OITICX COUFLAIHI SIinSTICS 
TIUI noPSSD SETfXra 7IRST ACTION JkSD CLOSINa 
Labor Code Cases, Total of all Offices. Octo1>er, 1933 - Uajr, 1935 jej 



Time elapsed between Ho 

first action and Total Adjusted Tiolation Soropped 

dosing 

Total 113,215 50,340 47,312 14,663 

Closed on day of 
receipt 

1-6 days 

7-13 days 

14-20 days 

21-30 days 

31-45 days 

46-90 days 

91-182 days 

6-12 nonths 

13-18 montlis 

Orer 18 months 

lot reported 



6,609 


3,968 


19,414 


9,574 


14,687 


6,629 


11,454 


5,120 


13,632 


6,065 


12,485 


5.567 


17,999 


7,827 


9,892 


3,942 


3,687 


1,293 


151 


59 


15 


13 


2,190 


183 



2,339 


302 


8,571 


1,269 


6,798 


1,260 


5,398 


.936 


6,225 


1,342 


5,616 


1,302 


7.413 


2,759 


3,603 


2.347 


1,069 


1,325 


24 


68 


1 


1 


255 


1,752 



^ The offices were officially actire ffom October 19. 1933 to May 27, 1935. 
Also inclndsd are 14 adJTisted, 57 no Tiolation and 43 dropped cases accepted 
prior to October 19, 1933. 



Prepared byi 
Statistical Section, 
Tield Division, BBA 
March 3, 1936 

9861 



state Office Series 

-208- 

ZABXX ni 

NRA STATE OFFICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS 
METHOD OF CLOSING 
Labor Code Cases, Total of all Offices, October, 195S - May, 1935 a/ 





Method of Closing 


Cases 


Total 
Percentages 


Adjusted 
Cas6s Percentages 


No 

Cases 


Violation 
Percentages 


Totfll of all methods 


96,897 


100 


49,785 


100 


47,112 


100 


Correspondence 


20,579 


21.5 


7,381 


14.8 


13,198 


28. 


Field Adjuster 


52,579 


54.3 


28,959 


58.2 


23,620 


50.2 


Office Conference 


19,249 


19.9 


10, au 


21.7 


8,438 


17.9 


State or Local Adjust- 
ment Board 


749 


.7 


500 


1.0 


249 


.5 


Code Authority 


2,440 


2.5 


1,489 


3.0 


951 


2.0 



State Agency (Dept. of 

Labor, etc.) 567 

Coxrrt suit instigated 

by complainant 5 

tfaknown 729 



.6 



.0 



.7 



268 



372 



.6 

.0 
.7 



299 

1 
356 



.6 

.0 
.8 



a/ Offices were officially active from October 19, 1933 to May 27, 1935 



Prepared by: 

Statistical Section 
Field Division, NRA 
February 1, 1956 



9861 



''■no 
Section 3 . Trade Practice Complaints . 

A. Uat-gre of Violation, Trade practice Cases . The relative adminis- 
trative difficulty arising from trade practice provisions is reflected 
in the stiramary fi,f;ures shov/ing the toti"..l nunfuer of violations, ty class 
of provision violated, ns presented in Table XIV. 

A separate ynalysis by type of violation has been prepared for each 
code snd each supplement ar^,'' code in v;aich violations have been investi- 
gated by State Offices. (*) 

In using tnese figures as an index of the total- difficulty with 
given trade practice provisions, allowance must be ixide fct the even 
greater volume oi trade practice complaints handled by the Code Auth- 
orities. (**) furthermore, general liuiititions dif;eussed in the intro- 
ductory section are eqnoally applicable in studying this data. For ex- 
ample, trade practice figures are a p-irticularly unsatisfactory index of 
compliance, because they are rar.rkedly affected by sporadic efforts on the 
part of Code Authorities to enlist the edd of the State Offices in se- 
curing price filings, statistical reports, or the use of labels. 

The interpretation of the figures for individual types of violations 
has been left to the Trade Practice Studies Section of the Division of 
Review. (***) 



(*) Copies of analyses of individual codes are available for in- 
spection in the records of the Field Division of ilEA. Additional 
copies were distributed to the Industry and Trade Practice Studies 
Section, and to the Code History Section for inclusion in the 
copies of the histories. 

(**) On April 30, 1935, there were 493 codes and supplementary codes 
officially authorized for the handling of trade practice com- 
plaints. Somewhat incomplete reports from Code Authorities for 
the bO major codes (chosen on the basis of size) and their 
supplements for a reporting period July 7, 1934, to May 25, 1935, 
showed 198,707 trade practice conplaints. The figures are af- 
fected by serious discrepancies in definition c:nd reporting per- 
iods, but are cited only to indicate that the volume of trade 
practice complaints handled by code authorities was in excess of 
that handled by sti-.te offices. 

(***.) Report of Price Piling: Unit, Chapter VI, contains an analysis 

of the proportion of price filing violations to total violations. 
Report of Commodity Information Unit also contains an analysis of 
trade practice complaint sttitistics. 



9861 



210 



i 



CQ 


>< 


O 


C 


M 


^ 


S 


5 


»H 


O 


Ej 


o 



8 S 



O n 



4* 

I 



S 



I 



•8 



I 



I 



«^ 









o ^ o 

^ ,o V) 



& g*''SS^« t^^® I'gG-iRSP'-Sfc g'^RR»'^Rr SR^"^ 



to I to n Irs vx> H 






cvj ni 



a IS^-^^Flg! gg-gg *|,g>55;g.«'§R gSRtai&rtK^ U^t^' 



i»NVi> t-r— tr>H ff^ cvjirnnw h lovo b-<r>\ovo o N O-^?^ r-^-^^P w ir>»einvavo 

iH i~~* iH cuwvD 2\>HU>i-i jt ^ a-,jt StiM )t\o o\ N iruf lo c-<2> 10 r- Oh-ioirti-i 

O VD i-t o\£> ir.cn o^o K^(<^ Hi-ini a>r4 hiiH H W K><i c-i 

1-7 u^ r<^ cJ iH 



m n «9 ni >H ao h-sp vor^om o OMor-tH too w r^ K\p>K>ir\KM^vo^ h-cngNrHu 
o\ CM iH H K^fHl'^ r--oa>OD i\i oMoIrtH r-ni jt- h Irvi-i cm cQja- Iu oj K-r-^ ? 

H cJ fH <niH t^ J* rt cJ 1-4 






in I cu cu 



6 <r> vc r4 ibcui^m kncu |<^H ih r4 n N to la lr> 






ITt K\ CU 



f ^&s"^^s 1^?^ ?&|p3»fl>8 ^«»»Sr^S »^^"^ 



o i-i »H t~- ir>rt iH 



<M 

•3 



•a 



3 ri o ^ W 






So e 






9861 



211 



"51 



i 

I 8 

M 
o 

i 
§ 

I 



5 

o 
o 



s 



•a 

8 



S ^ 
i;'^'^ 

^ ^ 



-9 



1 



&S 



•8 



^■^to;*' r--)-ivD t-A0 K\>-r-o a> I j- k\ i i^ 



^ p-"-SS| l-^j-pRRgig 



iFi^Sfr ^"^SIS |t8Sf= g'lGW"'^ ^5 I "S"' "^ S.R 



vDlr>oK\CD Qj»j» ir>f-ilrv»o HCo oMr>t>-o itiih r-iH r-cvi r»^Rj hi oitiN 

ir» f-t K\ <2 (H W K> iH t-l KNr< . Nt-«ir>(U 



^ r«^3-^ ON «o o^o r-sat Q o\^ cu w w osfH irjt 05 «o o irv o> Ki rH V^OS r^ 

CM fH3- IT. O^HK^ J rH l?\C\l eo f-IK\l\l 10 H rH ^ <\l «0 is- 



QWfH^-vo o .a- r^3 i^-vo invA to irv7^"0 K>ir\ «o ri r^crtvA into a^Q N 



^^RiRR" irc*r-^ONrH«,3JVj Ol»^<T^^{5,| ^•>- j »- | ^"#Ji^C 



K\cy ir\ln 



fHU>t-rir- ir>vx>^ t<^cu ivcQ-a- a>rH ovc (rtK\ ir>xA i^va ih lr^^••H ir> 
K-totvJlrio c- f-itHiHl<x>*io iH r^i<> rt i-i i M Kvo 

^ rH i-l H CM I i-l (Ml 



h-vi> iH Q BO Lr»*35 h-ir\ftj TO ^K^o^ voKtOBOOfH gi cy o^cu ioknvc K^Q^t- 



J* fHJtvO rH Rj W K> a-RirSW rH rH (VI JF KN PSrH rH tM UM<NOO 



rH ITVVC no rH ^ O ^ ir> rH rH VX> O !£N ><^0^5^K^4vr> RlinKlOir>M 
K> »^r^rr\K\ K\rr\ir\rH rH f^lOh-^ ONrH K%r^in l«X C\J C\J rt W 



— j?3 e^! 



ti,5 

O eo 

« fl 
o 

r< 01 -3 1-1 OB 

CO r* ri <-< ^H 

4» ^ t-l »H a 



ill 



55 





^5 llfl Q 


li 


c AjDOd-Hh 


4* "^ 




s 


s 




I 

5 



o 

B 



VI 

o 

« 









■H 11 J 
*» rH ^ 



9861 



-212- 

It should be oointed out that the errperience of individual codes, 
uith almost identical provisions, has varied widely, T^-'elve codes uere 
found to he responsible for more than half of the reported instaiices in 
all codes of failure to adhere to filed prices, and for 36.9 per cent of 
the violations of failure to file prices. Interpretation of the summary 
figures, accordingly, is dependent upon a study of complaints, and their 
concentration by code, and the contribution of each code to the total vio- 
lations of a given type of provision. See table XV for a list of the 25 
codes ?rith the largest number of trade practice complaints. 

B. Case Coverage The figures included in table XIY are based on normal 
cases under codes, excluding any cases sent on reference to Code Auithori- 
ties prior to June 16, 1934. 

C. Violations Each violation is shotni against the classification under 
which the provision violatec" rrr.s placed. The sun of t^ae violation is, 
accordingly, equal to or greater than the total number of cases docketed. 
B. Hethod of prepriration An analysis of each trade practice case file 
\7as transmitted to Washington by the State IIRA office, the information be- 
ing recorded partly in sjTiibols. and partly in descriptive words. Errcept 
for four tj^es of code provisions, data on the nature of the violation or 
aJleged violation was furnished by reference to the article and section of 
the code concerned. The provisions vrere assigned to a particular classi- 
fication 'by the Washington staff. This method was made necessary 03^ the 
complexity of the regulations and the variety in the language used. As 
will be seen below, a certain ajnount of detail v/as necessarily lost. 

Problems encountered in classifying provisions . 

The difficulties encountered in mrJcing a completely accurate classi- 
fication of trade practice provisions mcj be divided generally into two 
groups. 

(a) Those arising from the numerous refinements rnd variations of pro- 
visions of a similar nature in different codes. In such cases, all similar 
violations have been grouped together, as far as possible, under a single 
heading indicating the general nature of the practice which was the com- 
mon object of regulation. 

(b) Those arising from the fact that in a number of codes, several 
hinds of trade practices were made the subject of regulation in 0. single 
section or subsection of the code. It was impossible, therefore, when 
reference was made to one of these provisions, to kno-" which of the regu- 
lations had been violated. In such cases, violations were arbitrarily as- 
signed to the most comnon kind of practice included in the section. 

The principal classification difficulties which were encountered in 
iclassifjT-ing the practices occurred in connection vrith the topics listed 
Delow. An examination of these problems will tlirow light on the general 
ralue of the data, and ^■'ill slso serve to indicate the content of the 
leadings listed. 

(1) Prohibition of "destructive price cutting^ was in many codes in- 
cluded in the sane section with prohibition of "sales below cost." Thus 

it was not possible to determine which prohibition had been violated. Since 
"destructive price cutting" was in these cases a vague and -undefined concept, 
Piid since cost was an ii.iportant element in determining the "destructive"^ 
nature of a price, violations of such sections were assigned to the prohi- 
bition of "sales below cost". 

(2) In classifying violations of "sales below cost" provisions, a 
.distinction Y:as made between provisions prohibiting sales below a cost 

9861 



'J 1 c 
(^ 1. \J 



W3 

•r-l 



■ 1 

E 

O 

o 

V 



P. 

(U 



W 






o 

o 

-^ 
CO 



< 




-X 






5 5- 
5^ 



o OS 

^»M-l 



MMMMJiiti 






I 



o 
o 



§ 8 S 

■3 ■V 01 



MifiSitMii- 

c o Q g o 

o o o o o 

.. o « ve ■* « 

f<) 19 ej f* « ■* 




;« eg©!) 
C o«-< 



o 
o 
o 



o 

o 



o 

o 



o 
o 



o 

o 

nj 



O 
O 
« 



o 

o 

« 



o 



o 

o 

(4 



9861 



■aOOMMON ->«*! AM*J«03 )«00» X«003 



'M3MI njrf SNri«IA 



► llfr ON 



-S14. 
SABU ZZ 



CODE name: 



NRA STATE OFFICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS 

VIOLATIONS OF TRADE PRACTICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 
Total of all codes for all pfficaa, October, 1933, - Uay, 1935 a/ 

P» 8. SOMMiLEr 



Alph«Jt>etloal Symbol, 



TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES. 



36.435 



TOTAL NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS 41.197 



NO 

ADJUSTED VIOLATION DROPPED PENDING 

19.674 8.094 fi.aqfi _3,3® 

21.960 9.306 6.1S2 _a,flftl 



STATISTICAL REPORTING 

27 (1) Failure to file statistics 

(2) Failure to file labor statistics 
PRICE FILING 

28 (1) Failure to file prices 

(2) Failure to post prices 

(3) Failure to file rates and tariffs 

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRICES 
29.. (1) Sales below minimum prices speci- 
fied by code or Code Authority 

(2) Sales below emergency pricesr 
established 

(3) Failure to comply with "L^mita- 
tion-on-Price-Increase" 




942 



336 



440 



.12^ 



_25B 5fi_ 



JSiX. 



J2S- 



JISS. 



.32- 



_2Sfi. 



Ria 



JLoaL 



.22. 



863 ,.,. fim 
-ia2_ i 



.22Z. 



JSL 



30 DESTRUCTIVE PRICE CUTTING 

PRICE ADHERENCE 

31 (i) Failure to adhere to filed prices 

(2) Failure to adhere to posted prices 

SALES BELOW COST 

32 - (1) Sales below cost (manufacturing and 

non-distributing industries) 

33 (2) Violations of mark-up and loss- 

limitation provisions (distributing 
trades) 

34 (3) Cost determination (Graphic Arts 

Industries) 

(4) Failure to establish individual cost- 
accounting system and miscellaneous 
costing violations 



.SIB IZL 



392 



741 



93 



JS. 



_12&. 



J3l. 



J83. 



?.??? SQZ. 



J&. 



jia. 



.H. 



JLQL. 



ja!L. 



2« 



_32S_ 



J&. 



.12- 



.10. 



ja. 



9M1 



-SIS- 



Alphabetical Symbol, 



9861 



NRA STATE OFFICE TRADE PRACTICE COMPUINT STATISTICS - Page 2 



NO 



ADJUSTED VIOLATION DROPPED PENDING 



35 RESALE PRICE JMINTENANCE 

Provision requiring adherence 
by customers or salesmen to: 

(1) Members' published prices 

(2) Minimum price provisions' 

(3) Manufacturer's or wholesaler's 
published prices 



JU- 



JU. 



36 DISCOUNTS 

(1) Cash 

(2) Quantity (in one order or 

shipment) 

(3) Volume (over a period of time) 



S9 



10 



JSL 



24 



_lfi_ 



12 



37 



CREDIT TERMS 



14 



19 



38 CONTRACTS 

(1) Non-f'uf orcement of contracts 

(2) Failure to file with Code Authority 
contracts ante-dating, and excepted 
from, emergency price provisions 

(3) Adjustment of prior contracts 



17 



11 



21 



15 



J£- 



39 FALSE AND INADEQUATE AGKEEiffiNTS OR 
DOCUMENTS 



loe 



48 



.3*- 



40 BIDDING 

(1) Failure to file bids 

(2) Bid peddling and shopping 

(3) Collusion in bidding 

(4) Other bidding practices 



432 



55 



JSO. 



178 



36 



JSZ_ 



121 



189 



JkS- 



41 



IMPROPER AWARDINO OF BIDS 



100 



49 



J3- 



.28. 



xoee 



-816. 
UBUt ZZ (CPBtU) 



Alphabetical Symbol, 



NRA STATE OFFICE TRADE PRACTICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS - Page 3 



42 CONDITIONAL SALES 

(1) Consignment sales 

(2) Other conditional sales 



HO 
ADJUSTED VIOLATION DROPPED PENDING 



78 



16 



23 



43 RETURNED GOODS 

(1) Accepting returned goods 

(2) Allowances for returned goods 

44 EXCESSIVE TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE 



45 ALLOWANCES 

(1) Advertising allowances 

(2) Allowances for definite service 



103 



88 



1 


I 


— ~ mm 


67 


J» 




1 







46 PRICE GUARANTEES 

(1) Price guarantees (definite 
prohibition) 

(2) Other provisions re price guarantee 
except guarantee of product 



22 



18 



47 



PRODUCT GUARANTEES 



ao 



48 TRANSPORTATION CHARGES 

(1) Transportation charges 

(2) Basing point provisions 



78 



49 



50 
9861 



PREMIUMS, LOTTERIES, ETC. 

(1) Giving premiums, coupons, etc. 

(2) Lotteries 

(3) Contests 

(4) Auctions 

(5) All of foregoing in one provision 

FREE GOODS O^t FREE DEALS 



18 



1 


^^ 




1 


155 


33 


10 

7 


s 


173 


39 


19 


6 




2 


S 


19 


4 


6 


1 


30 


11 


3 

40 


MM 


273 


80 


• 



x«i3(^" 



can zz (OMitiA) 



Alphabetical Synbol. 



NRA STATE OFFICE TRADE PRACTICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS - Page 4 



NO 
ADJUSTED VIOLATION DROPPED PENDING 



51 FREE SERVICE 

(1) Free service or maintenance 



(2) Inadequate deposit on equipment 99 
52 GIFTS, SUBSIDIES, FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ?_ 



55 COMMODITY STANDARDS 



56 LABELING REQUIREMENTS 
(Except NRA Labels) 



60 CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION AND TRADE 
DIFFEa^ENTIALS 

(1) Filling customer classification, by 
class definition or name, and 
adhering to same 

(2) Adherenoa to custoaer classes, or 
restrictions, established by code 



63 SHIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 

(1) Requirements relative to time, etc. 

(2) Split-box sales at wholesale, etc. 



54 SALES OF SUB-STANDARD GOODS ^1 1* 



147 67 147 14 



151 64 28 15 



57 DESIGN AND STYLE PIRACY 30 31 13 



58 PRODUCTION CONTROL 

(1) Restrictions on productive capacity 17 U 



, (2) Production quotas (a.ylotm9nts, etc) <t4 13 10 
(3) Inventory lijuitatiojss 1 '— 1 



59 HOUR LIMITATIONS 

(Ij Machine, plant boui>' limitations 80 6 13 



(2) Hours of business. Distributing and 

Banking Codes 804 275 181 



(3) Adherence to trade differentials H 13- 

(4) Limitations relative to salesmen __9_ B_ 



fftCX 



-218m 

taa zz (contu) 



Alphabetical Symbol, 



NRA STATE OFFICE TRADE PRACTICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS - Page 5 



NO 



ADJUSTED VIOLATION CROPPED PENDING 



61 DISCRIMINATION AND SECRET REBATES 

(1) Discrimination between buyers of 
same class 

(2) Rebates or discounts used as a 

subterfuge 

(3) Monopolizing ar.d discriminating 
against sitall enterprises 

(4) Splitting fees, cottmissions 



92 



265 



17 



62 



85 



31 



19 



42 



26 



62 MARKET PROTECTION 

(1) Direct sales in competition with 
retailer or other factor 

(2) Extra zone sales 

(3) Violation of territorial agency 
franchise 



43 


4B 


4 


1 


30 


21 


5 


2 


11 


4 


4 


! 



63 COERCICU, INTERFERENCE, PREDATORY 
COMPETjVIION, COMMERCIAL ERIEERY 



304 



179 



68 



57 



64 MISREPRESENTATION AKD DECEPTION 

(1) Deceptive selling methods 

(2) Deception in fillihg orders 

(3) Inaccurate underselling claims 



108 


35 
12 
23 


17 
12 


8 


38 


5 


63 


;? 


8 



65 



66 
67 



taei 



ADVERTISING REGULATIONS 

(1) False, misleading and inaccurate 
advertising or statements 

(2) Inaccurate advertising and defama- 
tion of competitor 

(3) Advertising regulations in the Retail 
Trade and Retail Food and Grocery 
Codes 

(4) Restrictions on certain types of 
advertising 

FAILURE TO PAY CODE ASSESSMENTS 

REGISTRATION 

(1) Registration with Code Authority 



601 



79 



279 



203 



1 .285 



329 



(2) Failure to register trucks, buses, etc. TO3 

(3) Failure to register new construction 16 

(4) Failure^A© Vegister production, __ 

or productive equipment ____ 



216 



59 



105 



35 



66 



25 



112 



^OL 



JUL 



368 570 
372 221 



144 



406 



JLZi. 



89 



119 
16 



TABU n (CostU) 



Alphabetical Symbol_ 



NRA STATE OFFICE TRADE PRACTICE COMPUINT STATISTICS - Page 6 



68 NRA LABELS AND NRA INSIGNIA 

(1) Failure to use labels or insignia 

(2) Provision governing retail sale of 
manufactured product requiring NRA 
label 

(3) Improper use of labels or insignia 

(4) Code members purchasing from firms 
not displaying insignia 

(5) Sales to code violators 

69 ADMINISTRATIVE 

(1) Investigation costs 



NO 
ADJUSTED VIOLATION DROPPED PENDING 

617 333 255 223 



31 



10 



13 


1 


8 


5 


11 


6 


6 


4 




5 


28 


18 


2 

57 


1 
40 


57 


28 


11 


8 



10 



(2) Access to records 

{3i General administrative 

70 LICENSE ~ ADDRESSES 

(1) Working without license S7 40 11 

(2) Failure to establish business address 57 28 21^ 

(3) Permitting loan or transfer of license 

71 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

(1) Failure to file, or filing false 
certificate - Government Contracts 

(2) Failure to file certificate on 
demand of Code Authority 

72 MISCELLANEOUS 

(1) No code provision applicable 

(2) Failure to comply with Workmen's 
Compensation Laws 

(3) Prison made goods 

(4) Lumping or subletting labor 

(5) Sailing til* ims«t, etc. 

(6) Solioltlng 16 dayi after death 

(Batall Momanant Code) 

(7) Blo«5k>»V>olclng (Motion Picture) 

(8) anting or loaning Ufg. tpace to 

another Mf r. (Precious Jewelry Prodacing) 

Jot reported 

a/ Th" office! were officially actlye from October, 19, 1933, to 
Prepared by: ^7 27,. 1935. 

Statistical Section, Fitii^W^igion, 
National Recovery Administration 
Date UKTch. 6, 1936 

98ei TC 



11 


1 


5 


17 


53 


24 


12 


15 


2 


1 


1 




«3 


18 


1 


3 


2 


-— 


13 
10 


16 


4 
1 


Lag) 

1 


4 
1 


1 



11 



_15_ 



20 



-220- 
TABLE XZ. B 

BBA STA!FE OFFICE COMPLAINTS STATISTICS 

Tventy-flve Codes with Greatest Ifumber of Trade Practice 
Complednts, October, 1933 ~ Uay, 1935 



TSaae of Code 


Total 


Adjusted 


Bo Violation 


Dropped 


Pending 


Trucking Industry 


2995 


1676 


471 


559 


269 


Construction (Total) 


295S 


1463 


757 


285 


450 


fietall Jood & Grocery 


2601 


1599 


641 


302 


59 


Eetail Trade (Total) 


2547 


1628 


515 


322 


82 


Betall Solid lihiel 


1700 


962 


354 


259 


125 


Wholesale or Mstrllmt- 












Ing Trade 


1318 


803 


280 


110 


125 


Uerchant & Custom 












Tailoring 


1178 


473 


278 


210 


217 


Graphic Arts Ind. (Total) 


1106 


391 


233 


330 


152 


Baking Industry 


1096 


748 


106 


127 


115 


Retail Uonisnent 


895 


573 


203 


75 


44 


Ice Industry 


772 


499 


136 


131 


6 


Betall Bobber Tire & 












Battery 


770 


364 


369 


29 


8 


Cleaning & Dyeing Trade 


666 


321 


99 


346 


2 


Iheat riour Milling 


536 


67 


145 


2 


322 


Builder's Supplies Tr. 


525 


303 


97 


62 


63 


Betall Lumber, etc. 


494 


279 


81 


113 


21 


Electrical ManTifactnrlng 












(Total) 


477 


228 


51 


47 


151 


Shoe Rebuilding 


459 


79 


235 


145 


-. 


Motor Vehicle Retailing 


444 


172 


147 


97 


28 


Household Goods & Stor. 


434 


•265 


50 


118 


1 


Photogr8?)hlc & Photo 












Finishing 


416 


270 


115 


20 


11 


Canvas Goods 


395 


219 


118 


58 


«. 


Motor Vehicle Storage 












and Parking Trade 


375 


154 


40 


181 


—> 


Retail Tobswjco Trade 


371 


261 


58 


15 


37 


Merchandise Warehousing 


369 


217 


117 


27 


8 



Prepared by: 
Statistical Section, 
Field Division, NBA, 
March 20, 1936 



9861 



to be Jetcrrainec'. by- refererice ti ^■. ■■ardf -^rnnetlioc' of cost p.ccQ-untin^ 
(.-.oner.'.llj^ fri-uid ix. nanuf "ct-Arin;; anJ. o;lier non-c'.istri Ji:'-tini2, codes) and 
re ■■al".tions requirin;-; " uiniriioj i nar''~:-TTp on the r,:r-licatioii of a statis- 
tical mode to invoice costs or fixed - rices in :-'.nithcr indn.stry (^^ener- 
ally tncot-uitered in distribution co:ot). Iccanse of the conrplexity of 
Section 36 of the Cvr:^phic Arts Code and a Ipx. e vol-uiue of cases arising 
■uiider it, a separate classification ^vas established for this provision, 
A miscellaneous ,L.rc-a:p of ro^,ul',tions us-oally b--,sed y.-i the reqmrenient . 
tha.t an esto.blishjuent maintain soi.ie sort ol costing system was assigned 
to a separate sub-classification, numbered (4) under the headiniS "Sales 
below Cost", alt]aou:;h there is some overlap vit'a the first classifica- 
tion under the headin^;. 

(o) In a few cases, violations were reported 3f several provisions 
dealin;_j vrith the same subject ;:nd classified under same /;eneral headiui^ 
in the- classification system used, j'or neclianical reasons, it was im- 
possible to list i.mr.. tlmn one of these violations, and in such cpses 
the violation was rssii.,iiGd to the most inooort"nt sub-classification, 
usua.lly t-.e. first under the. headin;^, 

Kotes pa classific ati qns._ 

A fnrtncr note on the tyi^es of provisions included uLider certain 
headin-s may -be -h-lpful in the examination of these tables. The follov/- 
ing classifications seem to rcnuire additional explanation: 

Contracts 

Sub-class (1), "ITon-enforcenent of contracts", includes provisions 
dealin,!; v/ith t^ie followin^r practices: 

Departure froin credit ter/is of contrr.ct 
Settlement of old accouLits oolow full value 
Permittin,_ imi3ropnr deductions Y>rhen buyer remits 
Permitting- buyer's cancellation or repudiation 
Substituting higher qnality or q-orntity -oods 
Extendinf: or exceedi::;; contract 
T.etroactive settlements 

?alse and Inadequate Agreements or Locnmeiits 

This classification includes all provisions vihose object is, by 
positive requirements or by prohibitions, to insure a full and com- 
plete, accurate or itemized record of each sale or transaction, ana tne 
form of sucn records,- 

Conditional gales 

Sub-class (2) includes provisions ^ove-nin^, the following practices; 

Sales subject to trl-a.l or gpr«roval 
Hepiu-chase agreements 

Shipments without order (Transit Stock, etc,) 
Storing goods with customer 
Resale C-uarantee 

Agreements in which buyer is not 'oound 
Exchanging merchandise 
9861 Renting or leasing industry products 



■-222- 

Allovjances 

Sub-clasG (1) includes all "irovisions prohibiting or rCi:;ulating 
in ::a}j via.'/ the ;pay:nent for advertisin.'j service rendered l)y customer, 

Siib-class (C) includes regulations ">£ allowances for any other 
definite service or value rendered "by a customer, except trae.e-ins or 
advertising. (Tliis heading T/as not used for discrimitatory allowances 
•r.nd re'bo.tes, i7hich were included imder "Discrimination and Secret Re"bates" 

Price C-oaranteQs 

SuLi-clasG (l) induces only dciinit.; prohihitions of price giiaran- 
tees ^.s such. 

Suh-clc^.os (2) includes other similar provisions covering o;.Ttions, 
contracts for deferred deliver.}*' witi-. g-uararitecd price, price agreements 
indefinite as ti time or q'oantity of ^pods, and related siahjccts. 

Prod'ict &iaarantees 



i 



1 



Tliis classifica^tion includes p/'.l ;■ rovisions prohibiting,', or 
re^ulatin^: in an;- way, the giving of guarantees on products, i.e. 
deviation from standard gioe.rantees set forth in code, or violation of 
provision prohibiting: cc tain hinds of guarantees (maintenance, etc,), 

Transp or tat i on Charge g A 

Sub-class (1) applies to all ^irovisions allocating or regulating 
transporta.tion c'.Larges in any wa.y, siich as ;-iroviBionG requiring an F.O.B., 
or delivery basis of selling, "rcpayaent of freignt C'larges^ Tirohibitions 
of transportation allowances, etc, 

Pree Goods or Free Deals 

This classifica.tion lias been used to cover all ^^rovisions regulating 
tne ;^' iving of free goods, including such items as special containers or 
equipment, free industry' products, a.dvertising and disjolay m^aterials, 
sarmles, etc, 

jree Servi ce_ 

Under sub-class (l) ha,ve been included violations of provisions 
regulating the giving of sales hcl"o a.nd demonstrations, plans and draw- 
ings, repair and maintenance, v/arehousing an.d storage, etc. 

C-iits, Subsidies, Fina.ncial Assistance 

This heading includes all ;orovisions prohibiting or regulating in 
any vfay concessions rendered a. bi:iyer thro-ogfn financial assistance or 
favors, i.e. gifts, entertsin-'.ents , pajTuent of c:vDenscs, etc. 

Shipment Re qui r erne nt_s 

All provisions relating to time, method, or size of shipment are 

9861 



covered by su"b-cla.sG (1), includinj split sliipnent, sMpnents below a 
specified ; dnim-uni, deferred drllvery , etc. 



Sale^ 



Sul-j- standard Goods 



Under tiiis headin;^- liavc liecn included onlj^ t.iosc provisions im- 
posing re:3il.ations on the sale of other tlmn nevj, lu-iuscd, first class 
prod\icts, for the -rotection of the cons-urner. Provisions for quality 
requirGLients in the initial manufacture of the -.roduct arc not included, 
nor a.rc any provisio::s rolativ to -price or cost. The hca.din^^ covers 
d;.ma;,;ed ■j;'j'dC.s, seconds, used goods, demons t rs.t ors , discontinued lines, 
etc, 

Cor.imodity Standards 

All provisions este.hlishin/:' ...eiinite standards in the manufacture 
of a product, positive or ne;Jvative in ch^rc-cter, are included here, i.e. 
standards of quality, quantity, ^rade, ingredient, etc. 

L abel Requirements 

This headiniT' covers -nrovisions, ;^ositive or ne, .ativc in cl:ia.r.-,cter, 
relative to descriptive, a.cciirate labelling requirements, for the informa- 
tion of the consumer, i. e. positive requirements in labelling as to 
quality, quantity, ^.rade or ingredient, or prohibitions of deceptive 
labelling. 

ifarket protection 

The sub-classification entitled "Extra Zone Sales" includes anti- 
cwnpinf, ■"revisions. 

Adver t i s ing Re: :ulat i onq 

Unhcr sub-class (4) liavc been included provisions containing 
positive restrictions on specific kinds of advertising, not in them- 
selves inaccurate or misleading, such as the use of tne word "free", or 
the advertising of fixed dovm payv-ient and weekly pajTaents without regard 
to price , etc. 



}861 



-324- 



I 

8 

i 

s 












• o 
o 






!l 



I 



6 



•s 



% 






t 









'i 






S ! 1^ r-^M I I I I 



^ I 



Si 



4* 



HK\i4' N MMr^N I I I K> 



I i iS^ 



t fH<H mr~W M Alh-MH 



1^ 



» I j H onBShkm-ihhh I"* 



^ pg^Rs'KlKrSS''^ }g 



^ j~pgi?Lg,RKi»srr}| 



• 



lit 



III 




I 

s 






e 
o 



4* 

3 



^ 












8 dvA 

^^^-^ 

•« ^ ^ CM 
• 4> O H 

8,4* S ? 

V « • h 

>• 4* -H j 



9M1 



8tat» Office Sariet 

-225- 

lABxi zni 

I.R.A. SIAO OTSICI COUPUIIT SIAHSnCS 
80UBCI 
Trad* Praotio* Code Cases, Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - Uagr, 1935 jj/ 









B6 






Seurce of Complaints 


Votal Cases 


JLdJusted 


TioAatlon 


I^ropped 




ill soTirees 


36,425 


19,674 


8,094 


5,295 


3,362 


inoajnoous 


2T4 


150 


74 


44 


6 


bployee (status tmkaown) 


142 


SO 


35 


67 


• 


Present eagplojee 


62 


29 


19 


6 


a 


Termer enploxee 


71 


14 


48 


5 


4 


Ooorpetltor 


7,912 


4,172 


2,396 


1,187 


157 


Office staff 


1,267 


710 


313 


62 


182 


Cods authority 


23,756 


13,112 


4,305 


3,408 


2,931 


State a^enojr 


140 


80 


23 


ao 


7 


Ooy't purchasing agency 


12 


8 


2 


1 


1 


Labor union 


152 


67 


71 


12 


2 


IradB association 


1,282 


627 


366 


256 


33 


Other sources 


1,154 


584 


421 


125 


24 




201 


71 


21 


102 


7 



jl/ Ihe offices were officially active from October 19, 1933, to Uay 27, 1935. 



Prepared tyt 
Statistical Section, 
neld SlTlslon. VRk 
March 3. 1936 

9861 



state Office Series 



-226- 

xABut zniz 

N.R.A. STATE OFFICE COMPLAINT STATISTIQS 
METHOD OF CLOSING 

Trade Practice Code Cases, Total of all Offices, October, 1935 - Ma7, 1955 a/ 





Method of Closing 


Total 
Cases Percentages 


Adjusted 
Cases Percentages 


?}9 Viola^on 
Cases Percentages 


Total of all methods 


27,768 




100 


19,674 


100 


8,094 


100 


Correspondence 


14,079 




50.7 


9,465 


48.2 


4,614 


57. 


Field Adjuster 


6,407 




23.1 


4,309 


a.9 


2,098 


25.9 


Office Conference 


5,763 




20.7 


4,627 


2S.5 


1,136 


14. 


State or Local Adjust- 
ment Board 


76 




.3 


50 


.2 


26 


•s 


Code Authority 


1,164 




4.2 


1,021 


5.2 


143 


1.8 , 


State Agency (Dept. of 
Labor, etc.) 


91 




.S 


80 


.4 


11 


.2 


Court suit instigated 
by complainant 


4 




.0 


S 


.0 


1 


.0 


Tlhknown 


184 




.7 


119 


.6 


65 


.8 



a/ Offices were officially active from October 19, 1933 to May 27, 1935 



Prepared by: > 
Statistical Section '. 
Field Division, N.R.Al 
February 12, 1956 . 

9861 



state offie* series 



-227- 
lABU ZIZ 
H. R. A. ST/LTE OFFICE CCMPIAINT STATISTICS 
Time Elapsed between Docketing and First Action 
Trade practice Code cases - Total of all offices, - October, 1933-iia7,1935 a/ 



Days elapsed No 

between docketing Total Adjusted Violation Dropped pending 

and first action 



Total 36,425 19,674 8,094 5,295 3,362 



Action on day 

of receipt 4,496 

1 day 8,751 

2 days 4,142 

3 days 3,080 

4 days 2,378 
5-7 days 5,411 
8-10 days 2,591 
11-14 days 2,066 
15-28 days 1,818 
over 28 days 946 
NO action 32 
Not reported 714 



2,398 


1,292 


480 


326 


4,983 


1,522 


1,774 


472 


2,355 


767 


624 


396 


1,613 


666 


390 


411 


1,289 


564 


311 


214 


2,962 


1,225 


706 


518 


1,435 


655 


278 


223 


1,128 


510 


199 


229 


932 


458 


162 


266 


465 


298 


104 


79 


1 


1 


1 


29 


113 


136 


266 


199 



a/ Tbe offices were officially actlTe from October 19, 1933 to May 27, 1935. 



prepared by: 
Statistical section 
Field Division, N. R* 1* 
March 4, 1936 



9361 



state Office Series 

.238- 

lABLB XZ 

jr.B.Jl. SliTE 07FICS CQUPLAINT STATISTICS 

TIM ELAPSES) BETnEEN FIBST ACTION ASD CLOSmO 

Trade Practice Code Cases, Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - Uajr, 1935 ^ 



Time elt^sed between 
first action and 
closing 



Total 



Adjusted 



No 
Violation 



Itropped 



Total 

Closed on day of 
receipt 

1-6 days 

7-13 dagrs 

14-20 days 

31-30 days 

31-45 days 

46-90 days 

91-182 days 

6-12 months 

13-18 months 

Over 18 months 

Hot reported 



33,063 



19,674 



8,094 



5.296 



996 


587 


340 


119 


7,019 


4,631 


1.603 


785 


6,161 


4,117 


1,405 


639 


4.323 


2,645 


1,059 


619 


4,231 


2,461 


1,167 


613 


3,552 


1,950 


909 


693 


4,444 


2,375 


1,103 


966 


1,743 


783 


376 


584 


336 


131 


80 


136 


36 


3 


3 


31 



g g^j 



41 



60 



121 



jj The offices were officially active from October 19, 1933, to May 27, 1935. 

Prepared by: 
Statisticsd Section, 
Pield Division, NRA 
Uarch 3, 1936 

9861 



■;ii 






s 
s 

u 
o 

•*» 

f 



§ 


r-l 


s 


B 


tfl 


« 


e< 


s 


ta 






n 


3 


+• 


§ 


3 


8 


•d 

t4 




a 


S 


s 


a 


p« 


B 


o 


o 


5 


E 


M 


§ 


9 


m 


9 


4 


• 


• 


1 


n 


u 




Vl 




e 




u 




s 




1 




■a 




<» 




« 



9861 






O (S 
>5 pH 






3 



:3 

a 



O 0) 



4 



•a 






I I 



229 



r< t-\C\ J CN CT\r^ W) 



c III 111 I 8 2 -^ I -^-^-^ I I i I ^ "-^ i I "-^ I 1-^ Ki f3 i 



O W) I 11^ K\VO 

r**H 11 w oj 



I— aiir»W jH r-QO r4 i hi to K^r^ 



'■35 I 3'g'^jS ^s^^^a 



R s^" 



eo «o J* •-< w (-t 

^ (H fH N CO 



fi~5!S-'-"^12: 3 jR'Kl'^""^ 






8 W I I t\3 ir\3 K) Si o r< uv» rr, 
•H 1 I fv w r- J* .H 



I ! 



(4 j K\<M CU iH O 



^ ^ j , I I H^ p ! -^Pi R j Kf^ I I j 1 -^ S pS I I i i P^S*" p 5^5!" ] j 



I I I I I inw tuifN •oicrKr.piiii oo enjo inw i i ir> r^vu i cm 

- - ' - -■ ^ 1 t-IK\(V i * ! f^»H W #-l I I Jt f-l <-* i 



S i i I i ! I ! t? Si 



I I 



r§' 



SSI I 



Wc3 ©Mils?. WSP^So H I Sj «0 t^f-l iHi-l ^^ ni iH I r4 O OJ W SI 

i^^J•l^>^<^ j i-ii-tiiri^ 

r^ xs I • • 



Or! O «««H>^ 

r<Sl l-li-iol gj 



CO <\i I I i^T* jvi^ w er. 



c\j r^O r1 rou^^fi I 



\^ 



vo rH irt (r> tu OS 



1 -.o ir\w <H rt <T^^o^ 



I I JF (M ni iH o 

I 



o 

■a 



3 












3 ililiil 3a:&i 3ss£-ils^. 



e * 



O p 

3iia. 



«4 at 



o 

s 



a 

Is 



3alii3 3£,3H3 



» 
? 



s 



i 



CO 



s I 



M 

13 



a 
5 






9 



■8 



3 



a 


reapondenta 
Dropped 


Ji.rst eomclalnts against 

Ho 
Idjaated Tlelatlon 


3 


If 




Total eaaea 

Ho 
Tlolatlon 


5 


3 


■ 

« a 

o . o 

1*1 



J- I I 3 



•H 4 r4J* I O^ 






230 



h- I I H I f>Jt ir>CMj» 



a-^^S I 1-^ 1~ a 18^8 ! t^l I'' I 



^-^IR* j g»l!i 3 j "RS^Sa 






a\trvr*-KV* i 



S. S»»l 



C-j» vo r- iH (M I— vo r— 1>- 









Kf" 



^S I 1-^ I 



I I 



1^ iH I (VJ I eri I \S r4 d 



to d l^t*^»H d O romiH I Q 



r-VD^^ «0 «H CM O r*-h-0 



60 uSo »-iaSro<r*fHf-i ro v^roK\i r*r*^fu^/ r«-o»HCT\ 

rH d d K>;a- !*> rH cH CU I ^ C\rHIOfH 



a 55 
o o o 

as ^^l-^l 

3<H O O O '- 
3 M M a>a I 



21 - 

'flow 




a 

o 

-a 



• v4 



S5 

r-l O 



'I' -^OP M m 



-alalb 
'3g33itass9 

^a»Hi3m4»oi3M 



f 



t 

I 

Ifl 

s 









•^ ■ 

• A 

• 5 

• i 

VI " 

• : 




&£«•! 



98bi 



PEA SBRIBS ._, 



TABLE XIII 
VSL STATS OFFICS GOlSPUim STATISTICS 

VIOLATIONS 07 THB PBESIDENT'S REELG>LOriiBMT AGBEEMSBT 

Total of all Offices, October, 1933 - May, 1935 sJ 

Total Adjusted Dropped Pending 

Total Suniber of Cases 
Total Humber of Tiolatlons 
Total Hour Violations 
Total Wage Violations 
Total General Violations 



5,933 . 


4,365 


806 


762 


9,921 


7,564 


1,353 


1,004 


4,765 


3,795 


684 


286 


5,012 


3,644 


654 


714 


144 


125 


15 


4 



gj The offices were officially active from October 19, 1933, to May 27, 1935. 
Included are 1,683 adjusted, 192 dropped and 6 pending cases accepted prior 
to October 19, 1933. 

Prepared by; 

Statistical Section 
Tield SiTision, HBA 
March 19,1936 



9861 



-233- 

State Office Series 

TABLE X 

HEA STATE OFFICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS 

AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION AND NIMBER OF EMPLOYEES PAID 

Cases -under President's Eeenrployment Agreement, Total of all 
Offices, October, 1933 — May, 1935 



Nxnaber of Cases 4370 



Amoimt (Dollars) 204,184.01 



Employees 7497 



Prepared "by: 
Statistical Section, 
Field Division, SEA 
March 13, 1936 



9861 



statistical Svam&rj of the 
Activity of the C<»Dpllancd 
DlTieion 



-232 



lABIS ZZI7 



SDMMARI, NRA COMPLIANCE DIVISION 

AND REGIONAL OFFICE CASES 
November 11, 1933 - May 27, 1935 a/ 





Complaints 








Complaintc 


closed by 


Complaints 


NRA 


On 


Docketed 


administra- 


referred to 


Insignia 


Hand 




tive action 


Litigation 


Removed 


May 25,1935 



TOTAL 7,136 

Labor Complaints 
Trade Complaints 
Labor & Trade Practice 

Complaints against 

same respondent 513 



3,634 



250 



1,^35 



175 



1,795 



187 



2,067 



3,673 


1,810 


657 


916 


1,206 


2,950 


l,57ii 


603 


692 


773 



88 



a/ This is a report of cases referred by NRA State Offices or by the Code Authorities 
to the Compliance Division in Washington, or after January 1, 1935 to the Regional 
Offices for special administrative action. These totals were compiled from the card 
files of the Control Section of the Compliance Division in Washington, and from daily 
reports submitted by the 9 Regional Offices. 



Prepared hyt 

Statistical Section 
Field Division, NRA 
July 23, 1935 



9861 



statistical Sunmary of -234- 

the 8u;tiTity of the 
Compliance DiTision 



Total all offices 

Total, Region 1 
Uaine 

Hew Hampshire 
Vemont 
Uassachusetts 
Bhode Island 
Connecticut 

Total, Region 2 
Albany, N.T. 
Buffalo, N.T. 
Hew York, N.T. 

Total, Region 3 
New Jersey 
Philadelphia, Pa. 
Pittsburg, Pa. 
Delaware 
Uaryland 

District of Columbia 
TirgLaia 
North Carolina 

Total, Region 4 
South Carolina 
Georgia 
Florida 
Tennessee 
Alabama 
Mississippi 
Louisiana 



lABu nr 




NRA STATE 017ICE COMPLAINT STATISTICS 


istigated Complaints Pending May 27, 


, 1935 S/ 


Labor 


Trade Practice 


4,515 


552 


332 


51 


35 


3 


17 


5 


1 


2 


68 


32 


65 


_«_ 


146 


9 


1,435 


34 


132 


5 


45 


10 


1,258 


19 


365 


231 


129 


15 


— 


69 


110 


— 


2 


1 


110 


130 


La 6 


— 


9 


16 


339 


16 


19 


2 


46 


3 


9 




39 


6 


100 


___ 


126 


5 



9861 



-S35- 

TABU XXT (CsntU) 

HIA STATE OFFICE COMPIAIHT STATISTICS 
Uhlnrestigated Complaints Pending May 27, 1935 a/ 



Total, EagLon 5 

Ulchigaa 

Ohio 

feat Virginia 

Xentucky 



Labor 


Trad© Practice 


623 


44 


260 

353 

10 


9 
34 

1 



Total, Beglon 6 

Wisconsin 
Indiana 
Illinois 
Ulssoiul 



279 

24 

15 

35 

205 



66 

2 

6 

42 

17 



Total, Begion 7 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

North Dakota 

South Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

Wyooiing 

Colorado 



110 



16 
16 



1 
77 



6 
3 

1 
2 



Total, Region 8 

Arkansas 
Oklahoma 
Dallas, Texas 
Houston, Texas 
Nev Mexico 



360 



46 
138 
163 

13 



18 



3 
6 



9861 



-236- 

SABXS ZX7 (CeaiU) 

BRA STATE OFFICE COMPUIITP STATISTICS 
Uninyestl^ted Complaints Pending Uay 27, 1935 S/ 



Total, Begion 9 

Uontana 

Idaho 

Utah 

Serada 

Arizona 

Washington 

Oregon 

Los Angeles, Calif. 

San Francisco, Calif. 



Labor 


Trade Practice 


672 


86 


1 


1 


— . 


5 


15 


— 


21 


8 


2 


— — 


122 


31 


134 


5 


62 


28 


315 


8 



a/ Instructions for the analysis of HBA State office cases, July 10, 1935, 
provided that cases vhich had not heen investigated sufficiently to 
ascertain whether a violation existed, or to determine the amount du», 
. were to be excluded from the analysis. The number of univestigated 
cases pending on May 27, 1935, but not analyzed, was reported by I2^ 
offices. In other cases, the figure was computed by subtracting the 
n\Mber of analyzed cases reported as pending, from the total number 
shown On hand May 27, 1935, in the report of that date. 

Prepared by: i 

Statistical Section, ' 

Field Division, N.R.A. 
March 4, 1936. 

9861 



■2E?- 



•APPZici:: I 



C861 



-238- 



irr^iij. 



ITEA S2AT2 OZTIC: CGLI^LAIl^I LT^CISC'ICS 
Stirvcy 01' Crsss Invest i "tec 
Cctobo;- !£ , 1333-Jl£.y :''7, ICCo 

LIST or SA3L ZS 

Tables siiovin;;^ viol?,tions of co..£s rrs ^.rovye:'. into three series, 
"The St'-i-.to Office Series", chc-iiv; i"iom:?_ticn broj-eri C.ovii 'hY office 
handlir.'j the conple.int, "The Coc.e Gai-ius", vith items \: code, ?.:-c. 
the "Speci"! Scries" shov.-iht, interrelr.tsc'. factors "br.set. on cor.foined 
experience of •- selected ^rov:? of offices, "'ithin these f:roii"p5 ere 
se:oar--.tc sets of fi:i,ures for lr."bG.- v.nd for tr-?.f ?. [Tractive conr^laints. 
There is r.n ?dditional ^jro'd'-) of tables shcrdnj violatior.F of the Presi- 
dent's Hec;.T:lo^ri'':ert Agreement. 

Tables shov.'in^; the same t;j'3'G .of info nript ion for labor and trade 
practice cases ha.ve been f,iven the se.r;e nranber. Indication as to vdnethei 
tables cover labor or trade, and adjusted, no viol-:ticn, dropped or 
pending caser is furnished by symbol: snch as L or IP, -and the nrmbers 
of the renorts fror.i which the inforirir.tion ''oj methcc of disposition ve.s 
dra\7n. 

Tables vere received fro.i the tabiilrtin^ scctio.. of the Densus 
in t'.-.'o forms, first in pencil entries ovi rotov. int od v/orh sheets T/hich 
have word ca-ticns and also coltvir. and si'T.ibol nv^inbjrs by wiiich the 
informe.tion v-?s recorded on pumcii cards, and scco:. . in the form of 
machine sheets, sho^'ing totals printed by the addin^. tabula.tor. In- 
formation sho\.a en nr.chine sheets neods to be "eco'.ed in order to 
read easily. 

Finished trbles lis-ve been ■ -repared iron the •,/ori: sheets either 
by India inh transcri-?.tior.- to roto-^rint '!•". forms, cr by t^^pewritten 
copies of selected items oi sheets oi correct size for duplication 
andbin-Mnp. In addition mrJti graphed blrnks sho-.-inp Isdoor and trade 
practice "provisions violate-'., have been prepared for each code in 
which conrolaintr were docr.et. The index shovrs both the tables covered 
by the ori.,i,ir.al votIz sheets an" also the ti-rnscri'-'tions nB.C.e fro.;i then, 
and vdnether these iip.ve 'uoen ."uolic? ted. 



3861 



STALL C7Z102 SZr.I3S (*) 



[■aule 1, l'\uaT-er of CaBes, and 
ITurnljcr of He^-oondents 



La"boz- 



■'ra.'.e Practice 



All methods of All uetliodG of 
dis":'osition disporition 



Table 2, Sise of Respondents' 
Us taoli slirnent 
(I'-umoer of ZJnr^loyecs in 
Individually Cpovatod. 
Ustff.lilishiaentE, an", in 
Units of Chains and 
C omo ina t i o ns ) 



All methods of All methods oi 
di s"oo s i t i on di s'o o s i t i on 



Tatle 3, Source of Co.vplaint 

Tahle 4, :.ethc:" cf Prjment 

of T'a^e P.estit'ation, 
"by ;''v:.:Ocr cf C-'sef, 
(See also Tables 10, 11, 1.?) 

Tahle 5, Ilethod of Closinr Cases 



T?ble 6, donth P.eceive 



Ad j "Lis ted _ _ _ 

r*P *^ '-^ s 

Adjusted, Adjusted, 

no violation no violation 
and droToed 



cases 

All methods of 
dis-osition 



cases 

All methods of 
di&pot'ition 



Table 7, Time liiapsed betv-eer 
Dochetii.^' and Tirst 
Action 



All methofs cf 
dis^:.ositiorj. 



All methods of 
dis"osition 



Table 8, Time Ulapsed bctveen 
First Action ?nd 
Clo sin- 
Table 9, Blue 2e.£;les removed 
by State Directors 
9 Service Trades 



Adjusted, 

no violation 
?nd 'Iropped 
c?ses 

Dropped 
cases 



(*) Table nuinbers correspond to those of the ori^ir.al str.dy, rather 
th?-n to nmbers of te::t tables. 



.5861 



-240- 



STATZ omen SLHIES (continued) 



Labor 



Trac'.c Practice 



Table 10 .toouait anc. ITturiber 
of i]r:nloyees 
Receiving Yiage 
pLCStitiition 



Adjusted 
cases 



jS time. ted Amoimt 
and l-Jnyloyoes Owed 

Table 11 Couait of Cases not 
^Loporting YJage 
Hestitxi.tion 



Dropped and 

pending: cases 

Adjf-sted 
cases 



Table 12 Wctliod of Payment 

of VJage Hestitution 
by Aj^iount 



A Justed 
caset, 



Table 13 ITatui-o of Viol? t ions, 
by State 



Adjusted 
dropped, 
pending 
(See ?lso Table 20, Code Seriesi^fses 



Table 14 IKmber of 
cases by 
code 



All methods of 
disposition 



See Table 20 



Table 15 Code by State 
(onitted) 

Table 16 Individually operated 
esteblisliments by 
size 

(Selected list 
of Sc codes 
and 31 st-pplements) (*) 



Adjusted 
dropped 
and 

pending 
cases 



Adjusted, 
drop'jed 
and 

pending 
(Selected 
list of 32 
codes and 5 
supplements) (*) 



Table 17 laijr.be r of Units of 
local, sectional, 
national cha.ins 
(Selected list of 
84 codes and 31 
s^ip'^lements) (*) 



Adjusted, 
dropped, 
pending 
cases 



Adjusted, 
drop'ied, 
pending 
(Selected list 
of 32 codes 
an:' 5 
supplements) (*) 



(*) See below for list of codes 



-241- 

COBZ 3EHI3S.0.y I1ABLEF( continued) 

Lator Tra^'-o Px-actice 



Ta.ble 18, iroxiLJer of Li-anch 
plants or Bi-anch 
sales offices, 
(Selectee list of 
u4 cor'es anf. 31 
s\i:r"leme:its) ( *) 



Taole 19, Sor.rce of Comlaints 
(onittoc".) 

Table ,30, Tjnc of Violation . 



Table 30:^ ^ir^ez of Violations, 
b;- Size an". State 



Ac'. J us ted 
dropped, 
pending- 
cases 



Adjusted, 
dropped, 
pen.'in^' 
(Selected list 
of 32 codes 
and 6 
suT)"! 1 emen t s ) ( * ) 



All methods of All methods of 
disposition dis^Dosition 



Sepavate 3 Separate 5 

pat;e analysis p?ae analysis 
for each code 
and sup^ilement 
(See table 13 
for national 
totals) 



for es-ch do do 
and supplement, 
rlso national 
tot-r.l svia.:s.ry 



Adjusted, 
dropped, 
pending, 
(Selected list 
of 105 basic 
codes and 218 
supp 1 emen ta ry 
codes) 



Table 21, Ascociated Violations 
(onittod) 

Table 23, Zr.iployoe Classifications 



Adjusted 
cases 
(national 
totals only) 



Table 23, Extent of violation 
Percentaj^e of 
cr.v-loyees affected 
by violation; 
excluding units of 
chains and combinations 
(84 CO ".PS and 51 supplements) 



(*) Ses beio- for list of codes 
9861 



-242- 
CODE S3RI3S OF TABLES (continued) 



Le.bor 



Trace Practice 



Table 24, Period of Violation Adjusted, 

"based on individtia,lly drop:oed, 

operated establisimients "^ending 

(Selected list of cases 
84 codes and 31 
s-opplements) ' 



Adj listed., 
dropped, 
pending' 
(Selected list 
S2 tasic codes 
and S Eur)':leraentsl 



Table 23, Anount and n"umber of 
ErTployees P.eceiving 
',Ta; e P.e s t i tut i o n 



Adjusted cases 



Table 26, C?.ses not reporting- 
v.'a£,e restitution 
(omitted) 



Table 27, A-uovot by i.ietliod 
of Payment 
(onitted) 

Table 28, Time received 



All methods of 
disposition 
(Selected 
list of 52 
cod.es and. 6 
supplements) 



SPECIAL SEHIES OP TABLES 



Table 23, Eiirployee Cla-ssifics-tions 
(transferred 
from code series) 



^icjusted 
dropped-, 
pending 
(national 
totals) 



Table 29, Size of Individually 

o"pera ted. e s tabli siment s 
by soxirce of coniplaint 



Ac" jus ted. 
cases 

(10 selected 
State Offices) 



Table 30, Source of Conr:laii-ts 
''oy I.iontli P.eceived 



Adjusted 

no violation 
cases 
(all offices) 



Table 31, Size of individ-ually 

operated, establisl-jnents 
by extent of violation 



Adjusted 

(10 selected 
State Offices 



9861 



-243- 

SPi:CIAL SEZLZS OF TA3L3S (contimied) 

Labor Trac^.e Practice 

Ta'ole 32, Size of Indivic'.iially Adjusted _ _ - 

C';-er?.ted estp.blisi-inents cases 

oy arnoimt s.nC. nvxdber (10 r,rlected 

of enToloyees receiving- State Offices) 
ya^e restit"ation 

TalDle 'joLX Si30 of Ifnits Adjusted _ _ - 

of cha.ins or cases 

Cor.ibinatio: s, by (10 selected 

Anoujit and Numlier State Offices) 
of "i^-nloyees 
I-eceiviiit, 'iTage 
?.estit~ation 

Table o4Ll, Size of Adjusted 

Individua.lly cases 

Operated (lO selected 

3stablishjnents State Offices) 

by L.ethod of 

Clc sin- 
Table 3oLl, Size of Adjiisted 

I ndi V i d'Lia 1 ly ca s e s 

O;oerated (10 selected 

UstablisLments State Offices 

by Time nip.psed 

in Closing 

Table "6, Time Tlapsed All methods All riathods 

in Closing by of disposition of disposition 

l.onth Received (?11 offices (all offices) 

CASZS ■lilDZR ??3SID3ira'S HESIvIPLOYI.iZLTT 



Table 1,(*) ITvribor of Cases All methods 

and iaijnber of cf disposition 

r.es-?ondents 

Table S, llonth Received All methods 

of disposition 
(iTational totals 
only) 

Table 10, .tooxnit and Tumber Adjusted cases 

of liiiployees only 

Receiving- 

VJa.t e re s ti t'^.tion 



(*) Table nxijfoers roi-ms-oorid to tables showing similar items in 

the State Offi 
9851 



-244- 

CASaS UlTOSR PRESIDENT'S HEEI.IPLOYl.'iEHT 
AGRZIZJ.OTT (continued) 



I^bor Trade Practice 



Table 13, Type hf Violation Adjusted, 

dro"OT)ed 



?nd pending 
cases 
(National 
totals only) 



List of codes to "be incliided in; 



TalDle 24, Period of Violation 

Tatlc 16, Size, Unit of 3stalilislin-icnts 

Table 17, Size, Cliains and ComlDinations 

Talile 18, Size, Branch Plants and Zranc>. State Offices 



TPJiDi; PIACTIG3 cod:; sa?ji;s 

Al^ohab e t i cal S:,Ta'bo 1 

ITurAer CODE ITAl.E 

036 Automotice Parts and Equipment (Easic Code) 

050 Baking 

058 Boaiuty and Darter Slio'o Ecfaipment 

059 Bedding 

085 Builders' Suy~lies 

102 Canvas C-oods" 

130 Cleaning & Dyeing 

149 . Constraction (Jasic) 

154 Electrical Contracting 

165 Pluiibing 

222 Electrical Hanvifacturing (Basic) 

231 Fabricated Metal Prodticts (Basic) 

345 • C-raphic Arts (Basic) 

375 GomiTiercial Belief Printing 

408 Koiiseholc' &aods, Storage and lioving 

412 Ice 

470 Lumber and Timber 

563 Kotor Vehicle Retail 

564 Ilotor Vehicle Storage and Parking 
622 Photographic iz Photo Finishing 

690 Retail Pood & C-roccry 

691 Retail Jewelry 

692 Retail Lumber 
694 Retail lionument 

595 Retail Rubber Tiro C: Battery 

696 Retail Solid, :\iel 

697 Retail Tobacco 

698 Retail Trade 

9861 



-245- 

t?ad:j ppactic:: col:e s3?j:;s (continuec.) 



Aipha-tcti c:.l Syn'ool 



6"C ..'oo'isellers Trace 

70,3 F.otail Dri^ Hre.Ce 

737 Set-uo Paper Bo" VSq. Ind. 

744 Shoe P.obuilding 

304 /Uniclriuc 

8G9 T/licat I'lotir 

84S vriioiesale Confectionery 

844 VJholesa.le Food C: C-rocery 

348 V.'hol esc. ling 

855 Hloctrical '.Vholesale 



32 codes 
5 su-TolemcJits 



C0D2S liXLUDZD III TAELIS 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24, 
LAiiO?. CODE SZrJES 



Alpha-liOtic^.l 

Coda S;aioo1 CO! 



010 Alcholic r.Gvera^-e ■.Tnolesalc 

033 .Antono'^ile Lff.:. 

036 Aucomotive Parts t: Zajaipment 

050 ":al:in^ Industr,y 

035 Lanhcrs Induct rj/ 

056 liarber Shop Trace 

059 ?eddin: Industry 

064 J' i txTiiinof-S Joal 

068 riov.se and Shirt 

074 ::.oot a-id Shoe 

075 rottled Soft Drinh 
098 Cancy l.^-n.-afacturin^j 
100 Canning Indv-Strj'- 

114 ChenicJl Nam^facturin^ 

125 Ci,:;ar Ii3.ntifacturin^- 

130 Cleaninij and Dj^einf^, 

134 Coat and Suit 

149 Constvv.ctio.'. Industry 

150 *ruildiri, Cranite 

151 *CGaent &UJ1 Contractors 

152 =t=Constraction lTe:.-s Service 

153 *Corh Insi.i.lation Contractors 

154 *:JlQCtric'.l Conti^actinej 

155 *Z,lovator hf^. 

156 *G-eneral Contractor?. 



9861 



-S46- 



corcs I7CLUDED I"." ta:;lzs 16, 17, 10, 

2Z F.nc. 14, (contiimGc.) 

LAUo::: code seeies 



Arohr.'beticr.l 
Coco Sygool 

i:>7 
i:3s 

159 
IGO 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
1G6 
167 
168 
16S 
170 
171 
13n 
186 
192 
210 
222 

29C 
522 

3.35 
346 
347 
352 
373 

385 
387 
407 
425 
430 
435 
443 
445 
460 
470 
475 
431 
542 



CODci UAL 



*i:eati:Vj, Pi-oin.^; an.?. Air Coii'-l. 
*lli ;,uv;ay C on t :'ac'':o rs 
*Ir.S"cil'.Lj.on Cont:.;.?.ctors 
*Ka 1 ?s: 3 i n I n c .ii.£' t ry 
*i.!arlDle Contracting 
*I,Iason Contractors 
*pGintini\ .5 Paperhantjin/^' 
*?l?.st'jrin^, J, Latliinii' 
*F l-cunl; in/ Co n t ra c t i njV 
""Llesiliont riocrin;; 



-.0 01 m' 



'■Aeet i.ietal 



*3tone Cnt'in, Contractors 
*TGri''azo C. ..osaic Contr. 
*Tilo Contractors 
*'."od:' I'loor Contractors 

Cotton C-a\T;ient Inc'.iictry 

Cotton Textile (Basic) 

CiT.shed S^:on.C', San-"- c"^ Gravel 

DresB i;?nu:?acturi'iij, 

nioctrical I.i-antur c c-nrir.^ Ind. 
*',7i rin^; Devl cc 

Faoricatecl I.intals (Epsic) 

Tertilizer Indvistrj' 

roldin^; Paper Box '.'.!'£» 

I'v.T i ;anv.facturin.^- 

I'tirni tui-e I..'an.v.fac tuning 

Craphic Arts (Total) 

*Intal^;io Printing, Process Croup) 
*Lithorra-^nic Printing Process 
*y;elief Printing Process GroiTO' 
*Trac".e Lithoi.i;raphic Plate Baking 
*Tra-de I.iouiitini, <"■. Finishin;;^ 

I' ray Iron ronjidi-^" 

Hotel Industry 

Infants €z Children ''■. "ear 

Iron d Steel 

I . ni 1 1 e d Out e rvsa r 

La-o.ndry i'rade 

Leatlier Indiintr^' 

Lu4;_,are C: Vancy Leather Goods 

L\ijnber d rirfoer 

Llaca.roni i ianufacturin,'^ 

Lacliinery d Allied Frodn.cts (:^.cic) 

lien's Clothin.' 



9861 



-247- 

CODSS iJOBJUm ir TASLSS 16, 17, 18, 

23 anc". 24, (coatinued) 

lAEOH CODE SIP.IES (continued) 



Alplmtetical 
Code Syxfool 

543 
555 
560 
562 
563 
564 
605 
617 
622 
678 
687 
690 
6S1 
692 
593 
695 
696 
697 
698 
699 
701 
702 
732 
737 
739 
744 
749 
756 
763 
797 
800 
802 
804 
810 
811 
815 
839 
841 
844 
845 
848 
873 



C0D5 IIaI.S 

iuen';s Keckj/ear 
Killinerj' 
L'.otor Eus 

I.iotor Vehicle Kaintens-nce 
liotor Vghicle Retail 
I.iotor Vgliicle Stora£;e C: Parking- 
Paper e ?n.lp 
Petroleuii Industry 
Photon; ra"?liic l: Photo finishing 
Ixiyon Silk Dye and Print 
Hesturant 

P.etail Fo'-:d an^" C-rocery 
P.etail Jjwelrj 
Petail L^Jiriber 
P.etail lles.t 

P.etail Ru.lioer Tire d Lattery 
Petail Solid Pael 
P.etail Totacco 
Peta.il Tra.do (Pasic) 

*Eooksellers 

*P:etail Custom iallinery 

*P.8tail Dr-ug 
Scrap Iron (Basic) 
Set-Up Paper Box iifg. Industry 
Shiphuildin;,; d P.epairing 
Shoe Rebuilding 
Sil]: Textile 
Soa^p and Glycerine 

Special Pool, Die d Lach. Shop. Ind 
Textile Processing 
Toy Gz Playthings 
Transit 
Trucking 

Undergarment c: "dggligee 
UnderY^ear d: Allied Products 
Used Textile Bag 
TJheat Flour liilling 
V/holesalo Auto Tra.de 
Wholesale Pood d Crocerj'' 
vTholesale Presh Pruit d Vegetable 
V.'holesale Trade 
Y/holesalo Tobacco Trade 



3861 



-248- 

CODES niCLlXDUD III TABLES 16, 17, 18, 
23 and 24 

lAEO?. CODE SEPJES (continued) 



Alphabetical 
Code S^TTibol 



CODE ITAi.IE 



882 
889 
892 
712 



Wood Heel Indu.stry 
Y/ood Textile 
'.Vreckin^ £; Salva^-e 
Eiibber I'.if.". Industry 



* Stipnleraentrl codes v:ith separate labor -.rovisioiis are designated 
by an asterisk. 



9861 



-249- 

CASES ESPORTED HANDLEI. 3Y 

STA^E AI^'D LOCAL ADJUSTt-IEIIT BOa:"I)S 



A-17 



Alatama 


U6 


Arizona-i 


— 


Arkansas 


--.k 


California 




Los Angeles 


67 


San Prancisco 


il 


Colorado 


c 

J 


Conne cticut 


72 


Delaware 


?s 


Dist. of Columbia 


\\ 


Florida 


52 


C-eorgia 


lUS 


ladho 


1 


Illinois 


70 


I ndi ana 


275 


I owa 


IS 


Kansas 


5S 


Kentucky 


2S 


Louisiana 


151 


Maine 




Mar^/land 


It 


Massachusetts 


Dl 


Mi chigan 


Go 


Minnesota 


S 


Mississippi 


2?. 


Missouri 


97 


Montana 


23 


Nebraska 


33 


Hew Hampshire 


7 



Ke\7 Jej.-sey 
Ne'.7 l,le::ico 
Siev I'ori: 

Aloany 

3affr.lo 
New "'orl: :!ity 
}'Iev.?x'r. 

North Cr:.'olina 
North Dclrotr. 
Ohio 

Oklc.ho;.ia 
Oregon 
Penns -lT.".nia 

Phil-.delphia 

Pitts air;' :h 
3ho:-e Islr.nd 
Soiith Carolina 
South ;3rI:ota 
Tennessee 
Texas 

Dallas 

Houston 
Utah 
Vermont 
Vir;-;inia 
■fashin 'ton 
Test Vir :iiiia 
Wisconsin 
7yo:,iin.i' 



110 




20 

6 

52 

3 

16U 

23 
23 

U51 

57 

57 

91 

6 

15 

^7 
1 
6 
1 

21 
2 

UU 

11 
6 



Total 2,813 



(Estimate based on 10$ cases by 11 local Boarcs 

72 cases by State Board 
15 local Boards not reported) 



9S6l 



1e 

^ I 

H 

ass 

111 

a — 






3« 



■I « d'-. 

OP • 



■i I 


















^ 

3 



ft t> I 



— f" 

111 






250 



eo^oof^H^ooj^'^of^'^eo eji^ 



00 0'^NOOCrn>P~<VQ 



0000 



- otf 



OMO<u^^o<-lr>(olUK^Ot-<o•-•oM olu 



>,Dcu<-i irsf^o%j-jS'^OsDWot^ft(r* oiQi 



o w o -^ -^ tf^ 



vg w ^ vg 



•-I irt vD to 



38'^8'S5!e'°'-'a 



orf o iTNi-t ow»*^<yw«>iri^'*oo 



^ KN KN .H r— 



a ° ^ ^ » 



rr\ o t^ 



t^ M) O lA VO O 



O O tfv O 



a o|g 



« IS 



f^ W K\ ^ 



(U iH CU O O O O 



~f* 



OOOOOOOOOi-tOOOOOOO Ol<^ 



to K% CU t- C\J 0% 



R 



o (H •-< po o Jh 



s> ve 



r- CT\ ;* jf\ if» <rv 



a s le IS s Si a 



r^ ir» (y 3 f^ 



jt r- i-< a\ cu 
K» «^ »^ iVi in 



■H Q tf ^ S vo 



"H 



1- 



S £■ » 



•0 t\i lO ;» <\l 



f SI 



a !s> R ve 

i i 

II 

a a 
I 1 



iriKNOh-ir\cyvoc (\*fy 






- 3|s 






I 
I I 



« • 



I t 



9861 



n 



I * '' 

X ► to 



3 



fi e 



& 

s 

« 



3 















-rcib 


i- 








A-32 












STATI SI 


^ICAL DATA C 


i: 










1^0. 





f Doc'.z 


xcizTi^: 


]D CASIIS PRE?i 


HlffiD ''20 


::^c-io:" 


.IL OE? 


ICES 






-ted 






l^efei 


■red Ca 


<oes 


Ref 


31-i'ed Cases 




Gas 


es 


Hefer. 


ef. 


Dates 




Closed 


or -dj 


asted 


P 


Bnding 


BEGIOK 


bv 


Co 


.iplicn 


je 3iv, 


i:eferred 


by Ilesi 


onrO. 


ffice 


May 


11, 1935. 


I 






52 




12/2:)/3U 

3/9/35 


to 




53 


5 


II 






60 




1/25/35 
3/^/35 


to 




5h 






6 .; ■ 


III 






669 




2/19/35 


to 




566 






103 


IV 






117 




12/19/3^ 
2/16/35 


to 




SI 






36 


V 






96 




12/21/3U 
3/12/35 


to 




76 






20 


VI 






165 




12/19/3'+ 
3/1/35 


to 




I2U 






ki 


VII 






Bk 




12/20/3U 
3/16/35 


to 




70 






Ik 


VIII 






56 




12/21/3U 
3/9/35 


to 




51 






5 


IX 






92 


- 


3/15/35 


to 




SO 






IS 



TOTAL 



IU03 



1155 



2Ug 



9S6i 



-?.SP- 



A-S2 



Si^lTISTICAL BSPOHT ON COilPLAIilTS 

HECZIi;~D II" /J;aLYSIS BBANCH, C01v^PLIAi^"CI] DIVI- 
SION ro:i PuinoL may 7, 193U to decz^eii. 29, 193U. 



WEEK EITDING 


COiviPLAll'JTS I 


: ire: ST I GATED cases 


COIviPLAllTTS 


Oij HAND 


NUlvfflER 




RECEIVED 


ANALYZED 


ADJUSVi'lO 


lIllinEi-fflED OH 


OP 










IN SUSPENSE 


ANALYSTS 


5-12-34 


216 


40 


12 


157 


12 


5-19-34 


172 


44 


7 


106 


12 


5_26-3U 


169 


3S 


20 


146 


12 


6-2-34 


166 


44 


11 


96 


11 


6-9-34 


160 


4i 


9 


149 


11 


6-16-34 


119 


24 


16 


103 


11 


6-23-34 


174 


12 


24 


152 


12 


6-30-34 


165 


23 


23 


116 


10 


7-7-34 


175 


22 


.19 


143 


9 


7-lii-34 


373 


39 


7 


346 


10 


7-21-34 


217 


26 


11 


203 


10 


7-28-34 


200 


25 


11 


171 


9 


2-4-34 


220 


39 


12 


259 


9 


g-11-34 


202 


42 


14 


155 


9 


2-13-34 


205 


27 


12 


152 


9 


S-25-34 


224 


41 


15 


129 


9 


9-1-34 


201 


30 


22 


129 


9 


9-2-34 


266 


50 


17 


197 


g 


9-15-34 


315 


61 


24 


203 


2 


9-22-34 


217 


40 


9 


191 


S 


9-29-34 


263 


56 


16 


225 


8 


10-6-34 


309 


33 


24 


229 


2 


10-13-34 


245 


31 


33 


299 


g 


10-20-34 


309 


33 


25 


216 


g 


10-27-34 


265 


46 


33 


2X4 


8 


11-3-34 


287 


61 


16 


223 


10 


11-10-34 


316 


52 


15 


219 


10 


11-17-34 


362 


37 


29 


259 


11 


11-2^34 


326 


59 


40 


407 


10 


12-1-34 


393 


40 


21 


211 


12 


12-8-34 


345 


73 


34 


329 


12 


12-15-34 


411 


24 


21 


262 


12 


12-22-34 


35s 


42 


13 


317 


11 


12-29-34 


272 


13 


12 


222 


11 


TOTAI 


2623 


1320 


639 


6255 


327 


AVERAGE (34 


\7ks) 255.4 


40.6 


18. S 


201.6 


9.6 



9261 # 



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 polif^ies 
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 Maie- 
rials No^ 18, Contents of Code His to ries , will be found the outline which governed the 
preparation of Code Histories.) 



(In the case of all approved codes and also in the case of some codes not carried to 
final approval, there are in NRA files further materials on industries. Particularly 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. 



-11 - 

S9t 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 da".a (ether 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 Mater ials No . 17 . Tentative O utlines and Sum m aries of 
S tudies in Pro cess , the materials are fully described). 

I ndustry Studies 

Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of 

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

Electrical Manufacturing Industry, The 

Fertilizer Industry, The 

Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes 

Fishermen and Fishing Craft, Earnings of 

Foreign Trade under the National Industrial Recovery Act 

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

1934. 
Part B - Section 3 (e) of NIRA and its administration. 
Part C - Imports and Importing under NRA Codes. 
Part D - Exports and Exporting under NRA Codes. 

Forest Products Industries, Foreign Trade Study of the 

Iron and Steel Industry, The 

Knitting Industries, The 

Leather and Shoe Industries, The 

Lumber and Timber Products Industry, Economic Problems of the 

Men's Clothing Industry, The 

Millinery Industry, The 

Motion Picture Industry, The 

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

National Labor Income by Months, 1929-35 

Paper Industry, The 

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

Retail Trades Study, The 

Rubber Industry Study, The 

Textile Industry in the United Kingdom, Francs, 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 



Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the 

T rade P ractic e Stu dies 

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 Line 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. 

Labo r 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 Industri'il Relations 
PRA Census of Employment, June, October, 1933 
Puerto Rico Needlework, Homeworkers Survey 

Adminis t rative Studie s 

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

Administrative Interpretations of NRA Codes 

Administrative Law and Procedure under the NIRA 

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

Approved Codes in Industry Groups, Classification of 

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

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

9768—3. 



- iv - 

Part C. Activities of the Code Authorities 

Part D. Code Authority Finances 

Part E. Summary and Evaluation 
Code Compliance Activities of the NRA 

Code Making Program of the MRA in the Territories, The 
Code Provisions and Related Subjects, Policy Statements Concerning 
Content of NIRA Administrative Legislation 

Part A. Executive and Administrative Orders 

Part B. Labor Provisions in the Codes 

Part C. Trade Practice Provisions in the Codes 

Part D. Administrative Provisions in the Codes 

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

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

Model Code and Model Provisions for Codes, Development of 

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

President's Reemployment Agreement, The 

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

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

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

Legal Studies 

Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition 

Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees to Enforce 

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

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

Enforcement, Extra-Judicial Methods of 

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

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

Industrial Relations in Australia, Regulation of 

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

Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions 

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

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

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

Trade Practices and the Anti-Trust Laws 

Treaty Making Power of the United States 

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

9768—4. 



\ 



THE EVIDENCE STUDIES SERIES 

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



Automobile Manufacturing Industry 
Automotive Parts and Equipment Industry 
Baking Industry 

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

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



Leather Industry 

Lumber and Timber Products Industry 
Mason Contractors Industry 
Men's Clothing Industry 
Motion Picture Industry 
Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade 
Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico 
Painting and Paperhanging Industry 
Photo Engraving Industry 
Plumbing Contracting Industry 
Retail Lumber Industry 
Retail Trade Industry 

Retail Tire and Battery Trade Industry 
Rubber Manufacturing Industry 
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry 
Shipbuilding Industry 
Silk Textile Industry 
Structural Clay Products Industry 
Throwing Industry 
Trucking Industry 
Waste Materials Industry 
Wholesale and Retail Food Industry 
Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Indus- 
try 
Wool Textile Industry 



THE STATISTICAL MATERIALS SERIES 



This series is supplementary to the Evidence Studies Series. The reports include data 
on establishments, firms, employment, payrolls, wages, hours, production capacities, ship- 
ments, sales, consumption, stocks, prices, material costs, failures, exports and imports. 
They also include notes on the principal qualifications that should be observed in using the 
data, the technical methods employed, and the applicability of the material to the study of 
the industries concerned. The following numbers appear in the series: 
9768—5. 



- VI - 

Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry Fertilizer Industry 

Business Furniture Funeral Supply Industry 

Candy Manufacturing Industry Glass Container Industry 

Carpet and Rug Industry Ice Manufacturing Industry 

Cemant 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- 
soJidate 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 oarec" 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. 



\