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 exolurovldine employment for skilled, 

or al6rloal poeitlons may 

oharge, with the written coneent of tke applloant, e f6e, not to exoeed thirty (SO) 

per oentum of th6 flrat month's salary, 

which may be collcoted fro5 the applioaat 

only after employment has been obtained 

and eaoegtsd by the applicant.* 

WA good many or our smployaent agenoise are making plao6m6nta whsre th6 baalo wage rate is set out as 

a certain amount. tkwever, in some instances these 
720 

honorable John 0. Read, Co&s8loner, page g 

employees are working a great many overtlao 

hours, end oonssquently are paid at the rate 

of tilue and a half fvr those oiertims hours, 

thereby asking the to,tal saount of money reoslved for ths pay g&lod muoh greater than 

ths basic wags rate< 

‘Will you please advise me whothvr or 

not the paxlmum amvunt of fee to be oharged by 

the em&Goymant agsnsy should be based on the 

basio 8alary or should be based on the total 

amvunt of mvney rsoslved when the orertims 1s 

oomputed.” 

We think the legi818turs in establishing the 

“first mvnth*s salarIm as 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 deolslons oonetrting this statute we turn to the hew York deolslon of Goodma v. MOM, 

43 N. I. S. (Bd) S8l,whloh dealt with a rery similar 

statute providing that the employment agent’s fee should 

not *exosed the amvunt of the first week’s wages or salary.* In overturning 8n edmlnistratire ruling by the 

Oommissiunet of Lloenses for the City of New York uhloh 

limited the fes to wags8 paid undsr ths forty hour week 

4xoluslv4 of overtlme, the oourt used the following 

language whioh ws approve end think equally spplloable 

to the terms or the Texas statutes 

*The defsmlantls ruling is a logloal oonsequence of his interpretation of the statutory 

work-week as a waek of forty hours, but, If his 

lnttrpretatlon be erroluous, hla ruling must 

neo4ssarlly smount to a lowering of the oeillng 

set by the statute. It 1s this aourt*s firm 

conviction that 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 restricting the numbar of hours that one may smploy anoth4r to work. 

For apeoiti4d purposes a standard work-week of 

forty hours is provided in oertaln Industries 

(Fair Labor Standards Avt, il. 3. C. A. Title 29, 

s4otlons 201 et seq.), but, ev@#n in oasera ootorsd 

bj that sat, work may ba oontraoted for and psrformed 
Hongruble John L'. R664, Comm.isa:onar~ ~666 3 

beyond the stander4 work-week at a wag6 rate 

or tlms on4 one-h6lr per hour OS overtime. 

- The statute under consideration her6 ha6 no 

relation to a statute dsalgned to safeguard 

a mlninum atendard of living and to prevent 

unfair oompstition in tnteratate oommefoo. 

It6 only purpose 16 to pravent the overoharga 

of a olaee of patrons whoas needs place them 

et a 4la64rant6gs ln their 4aallnga with 

those agsnoi46. met purpose is runy aooompllah64 by tha SSttiil8 of a OSlli~ in 

plain an4 unequlvooel language. 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 'beyond the 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 portion of 

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 expraaeed In the 6tatut4 under oon6l4aration. 

The allenoe on that aoore la not only patent 

sri46nos of a aontrary intent, but potent reason 

for not panpitting the 4efon46nt to 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