Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1915-02-12

| - "Vus0 cCCui tunt tu0 lu6CI-
tion Of the phrase by contract or day
labor done limits the scope of the
statute. There are two recognized
methods of doing public work, namely,
"a by contract. or (2) by day labor
or, as 1t is sometimes called. force &C.
count. The use OF the phrase by con.
tract or day labor done In our judg-
ment shows that the legislature had in
mind physical labor as distinguished
from labor in which mental effort is
dominant and that the act was passed
for the protection Of those engaged in
physical labor for the public.
'Watchmen Not included.
1T is difficult il not impossible to
draw the line between labor in which
the physical element Is dominant, and
labor involving the exercise of the
faculties of the mind. We think II
may be safely said. however. that the
act does not apply to public officers
nor to those engaged in clerical work
in connection with public Offices or In
situations. 1t would also seem quite
clear that those employed in the state
institutions as attendants or nurses,
guards or foremen are not within the
provisions OF the act. The case OF
Waterman Is somewhat more difficult.
but In our opinion the act would not
apply to one employed simply to guard
or care for public property where the
employment does not necessitate the
performance of manual labor other
than us incident to the protection OF
tho property.
in direct answer to your inquiry.
therefore. you are advised: Q) that
the act applies to all persons engaged
in the performance OF what may be
termed manual labor. whether such en-
ployment be by the state or other pub.
lie body direct or by one having
contract for the particular work: c.,
that the method or time Of payment Is
not controlling Tin other words. that
the one performing manual labor for
the public or for contractor on pub.
lie work is within the provisions Of
the act even though he be paid by the
week or month";: and (Sl that the act
includes only these performing manual
OF physical labor as above stated.
Very truly yours.
]. 7. S. LYLE.
Assistant Attorney General"
You will notice from careful read
ing OF the above opinion that the ques-
ton involved in this case is entirely
dependent upon whether it is classed
MS guard duty.
No Supreme Court Decision.
This question has never been sub
mitted to the Supreme court for de-
cision and until this has been done we
will have no basis upon which to act
in an intelligent manner.
would suggest. however. that in
view of the fact that this question is
in doubt. the benefit of the doubt
which declares: "That it is part Of
the public policy Of the State of Wash
ington that all work by contract or
day labor done for it or any political
subdivision created by its laws. shall
be performed in work days Of not more |
than eight hours each" This it seems |
to me would be the logical thing to
do in submitting the contract for bids |
as 1t would surely be in accordance !
with the spirit Of the law and would
not give rise to any charge Of evasion
through taking advantage of a techni-
cality.
This department stands ready at all |
times in cooperating with the county |
prosecuting attorney in bringing the
matter into court for final decision.
Very truly yours.
E w. OLSON.
State Labor Commissioner.