OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN 719

Honorable John C. Reed, Comniasioasr Bureau of Labor Statlrtioa Auatln, Texae

abors matter reads

rgsd for obtaining
no erent shall exee ($8)Dollars, .whlah eotsd from the aqMoant only ymeot haa been @$alnsd and aohe applioant;prDvlded,however,
or labor agents engaged exolurovldineemploymentfor skilled,
or al6rloalpoeitlonsmay oharge,with the written coneentof tke applloant, e f6e, not to **exoeed** thirty (SO) per oentum of th6 flrat month's salary, which may be collcotedfro5 the applioaat only after employmenthas been obtained and eaoegtsd by the applicant.*

WA good many or our smployaentagenoise are making plao6m6ntawhsre th6 baalo wage rate is set out as a certain amount. tkwever, in some instancesthese

## 720

honorableJohn 0. Read, Co&s8loner, page g

employeesare working a great many overtlao hours, end oonssquently **are** paid at the rate of tilue

and a half fvr those oiertimshours, thereby asking the to,tal saount of money reoslved for ths pay g&lod muoh greater than ths basic wags rate<
‘Willyou please advise me whothvr or not the paxlmumamvunt of fee to **be** oharged by the em&Goymantagsnsy should be based on the basio 8alary or should be based on the total amvunt of mvney rsoslvedwhen the **orertims** 1s oomputed.”

We think the legi818tursin establishing the “firstmvnth*s salarImas a arltorlon for oaloulatlng the maxlmum fee to be ohvrged by the uploymsnt agenoy used that term synvnymosly with -8g.8”. It has trequsntlg been so oonstrued. See S8 Words end Pbrasos aa.

Laoklng Texas deolslonsoonetrting this statute we turn to the hew **York** deolslon of **Goodma v.**  **MOM,** 43 N. I. S. (Bd) S8l,whlohdealt with a rery similar statuteprovidingthat the employmentagent’s fee should not *exosed the amvunt of **the** first week’s wages or salary.* In overturning 8n edmlnistratire ruling by the Oommissiunetof Lloenses for the City of New York uhloh **limited** the fes to wags8 paid undsr ths forty hour week 4xoluslv4of overtlme,the oourt used the following languagewhioh ws approveend think equally spplloable to the terms or the Texas statutes

*The defsmlantls ruling is a logloal oonsequenceof his interpretation of the statutory **work-week** as a waek of forty hours, but, If his lnttrpretatlon

be erroluous,hla ruling must neo4ssarllysmount to a lowering of the oeillng set by the statute. It 1s this aourt*s firm convictionthat his interpretation 1s erroneous.
"There Is no state or fedsral law restrioting the number of hours that one may work, There Is no state or federal law restrictingthe num**bar** of hours that one may smploy anoth4r to work. For apeoiti4dpurposesa standardwork-weekof forty hours is provided in oertaln Industries (Fair Labor StandardsAvt, il. 3. C. A. Title 29, s4otlons 201 et seq.), but, ev@#n in oasera

ootorsd bj that sat, work may ba oontraotedfor and psrformedHongrubleJohn L'. R664, Comm.isa:onar~ ~666 3

beyond the stander4work-weekat a wag6 **rate** or tlms on4 one-h6lrper hour OS overtime.

- The statute under consideration her6 ha6 no relation to a statutedsalgned to safeguard
a mlninum atendardof living and to **prevent** unfair oompstitionin tnteratateoommefoo. It6 only purpose 16 to pravent the overoharga of a olaee of patronswhoas needs place them 

### et a 4la64rant6gsln their 4aallngawith those **agsnoi46.** met purpose **is** runy aooompllah64by tha SSttiil8 of a OSlli~ in plain an4 unequlvooellanguage. Tha 06lllng is a the4 fee not to exoaed the first weal& wagaa. 1W6g66* la tha prioe p6pid for **aervioea,** and inoludea not only mnney but **even board,**  104glng or olothea. Corpus Jurla, Vol. 67, Wages, pagan 884, 286. *Gvertlme* la 4efln6d to mean 'beyondthe regular,fir64 working hours.' Yerguaon v. Port Huron k Barnla Farry Co., D. C., 13 P. ad 489, 498. An ovartin6 wage ia oonaequently but the portionof wages whloh la pal4 for the aarrioea rondared bayond those ragularlg fj~x64 hours, an4 la inolu464 in th6 all-oomprehenalvs term *wagoa*.
Vlad it been the l4gialetira purpose to aroluda overttma wages tram tha ooaputatlon of ths agents' fees, lt ooul4 here been plainly expraaeedIn the 6tatut4 under oon6l4aration. The allenoeon that aoore la not only patent sri46nosof a aontrary intent, but potent reason for not panpittingthe 4efon46ntto eubatltute his judgment for that of the 16glalatura.W

W6 trust that we hers fully l nawere4 your lnquiry an4 assure you that it will ba our plaaaurr to 66rve you at any tlae. Y4ry truly yours,

ATTORNEY CTNERAL OF TEXAS

nn a