**6,;** TlE?IE .c%-JITORNEY GENERAL

OP TEXAS

HonorableM. B. Morgan Commissioner OpinionNo. WW-372 Bureau of Labor Statistics Austin, Texas

Dear Mr. Morgan: : Re : Maximumnumber of hours a female employeemay work,under the provisions of Article 5172a in any one period of twenty-fourconsecutive hours. You have requestedour opinion on the construction of Sections1 and 13 of Article 5172a,Vernon's Civil Statutes and ask to be advised if the term "calendar day" as used Section 1 and the term '#day of twenty-four

hoursA In Section 13, both mean a period.of time beginningai ",;:%e&E night to 12:00 P.M.

Section 1 Article 972a, Vernonls Civil Statutes, "reads in part as fo&Us:

"No female shall be employed in a factory e 0 0 for more'thannine (9)hours in any one calendardav nor more than fifty-four (5%)hours in any one calendarweek." (Emphasisours). Section 13 Article 5172a,-,.Vernon?s Civil Statutes, reads in part as follows:

n

. . 0 female to work in any place mentioned in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Act more thano;heti;zber of hours provided therein in any one dav Yin any one calendarweek, 0 o ett (EmphaAre the terms synonymous, and does Section 13 prohibit a female employeeworking in designatedplaces for more than the specified

hours in any one period of twenty-fourconsecutive hours? This question seems to have been settledby the Supreme Court of Texas in Lorul v. City of Wichita Falls, 176 S.W.2d 936, 142 Tex, 202, when the Court had before it a similarquestion construing the term "calendarday" and the undefined term "day",HonorableM. B. Morgan, page 2 (w-372)

in Article 1583, Vernon'sAnnotated Penal Code, relating to the permissible

hours of employmentfor firemen in municipalities of various categories,

There the term "calendarday" was defined as being "the time elap&g from one midnight to the successiveone". Such construction

was said to be a rule ordinarilyadopted and followedmerely as a matter of convenience. The undefined term "dayc' was defined as "the period of time during which the earth makes one revolutionon its axis, the interval of time which elapses between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun; the average length of this interval, twentyfour hours".

It is our opinion two .terms

are not necessariy

I and you are so advised, that the synonymous

and do not necessarily refer to the same period of time.

.In.order

to determinewhat constructionshould be placed on the term "day",as used by the Legislaturein the statute here under construction, we must look to the purpose intended to be accomplishedby the Act and the effect that it will have when so applied to the subjectmatter. Lona v. Citv of Wichita Falls. suura. Its obviouspurpose is the protectionof health and the preventionof hours of employmentthat may add to the hazards of employment. In our opinion, such purposewould not be servedby a construction which allowed female employees to work maximum hours in two calandardays, but within one period of twenty-fourconsecutive hours. %y construing "day of twentyfour hoursl'

to mean a calendarday from midnight to the successive midnight, a female employee could be required to begin work at 3:00 P.M. on one afternoonand continueworking until 9:OO A.M. the followingmorning,without violation. Such construction would defeat the purpose of the Act, in our opinion.

That the legislativeuse of the two different terms indicatesa legislativeintent to distinguishbetween a midnight to midnight calendarday and a period of twenty-four consecutive **hOtIm,** is made clear by Lona v. Citv of Wichita Falls, Suora.

OOur position that the Legislaturedid not intend to restrict the rest period to be allowed firemen in cities of less than 75,000 populationto a : : 'calendar

day' is evidenced,we think by the language of the statuteas a whole. Seckon 1 of the Act, which regulatescities of more than 25,000 and less than 75,000 inhabitants, provides that the firemen shall not be required to be on duty more than 'six (6) days in any one week,' and nothing is saidHonorableM. B. Morgan, page 3 W-372)

about calendar days or calendar weeks. On the contrary, the Legislature, when it attempted to deal with cities of over 75,000 populationin Section 6 of the Act, expressly stipulatedthat firemen should not be required to work more than twelve hours per 'calendar day or more than seventy-two

hours in any one calendarweek.' This, to our minds evidenceslegislativeintent that the calendarA ay and the calendarweek should be applied in regulatingthe work periods of firemen in citieswith a populationin excess of 75,000, but that such limitationshouldnot be required in citieswith a less populat.ion,11 (Emphasis

by the Court).

Court, Also see Citv of Amarillo,v,York; et al., Supreme 142 Tex. 210, 176 S.W,2d 935 reversing&&Y of Amarillo v. York, 167 S.W.2d 787, where the Court of Civil Appeals held the term "daytl

to mean the usual calendarday from midnight to midnight.The language of Section 13 specificallyindicates~ which period it means by placementof the words "of twenty-four hours" after the word "day".. In our opinion, Section 13 clearly prohibits the working of female employees in excess of the maximum number of hours in any one period of twenty-fourconsecutive -hours,and you are so advised. SUMMARY

As used in Article 5172a, the terms "calendar day" in Section 1, and "day of twenty-four hours" in Section 13 are not synonymousin constructionalcontext,*but the limitationson female employeesworking in excess of designatedhours within a "day of twentyfour hours" refers to a period of twenty-fourconsecutive hours, and not a period only from one midnight to the successiveone.

TIM:jl:wb Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas .,: I,.: "y c&, & ii /" ; '!;;I .;r.< q Tom I. McFarling : aAssistantHonorableM. B. Morgan,page 4 (ww-372)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Geo. P. Blackburn Cecil C. Rotsch J. Mark McLaughlin J. Milton Richardson John H. Minton, Jr. REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEYGENERAL BY: W. V. Geppert