Evening star., 1952-06-13
Voids Pay
Protection for
$4,000 Girls
PorIey Set Today to
Consider Appealing
White-Collur Case
By Fred De Luna

By Fred De Luna
City officials moved today to
protect wage controls for more
than $4,000 white-collar girls in
private industry.
The Minimum Wage and Indus
trial Safety Board was to meet to-
day with Assistant Corporation
Counsel Chester Gray to decide
what steps can be taken.
Regulations setting up mini
NUNS for women and minors in
office and miscellaneous occupa-
tions were declared invalid yes
terday by the Municipal Court Of
Appeals. These controls will be
wiped out automatically by June
%, unless further appeal is made.
Out of today's meeting is ex-
pected to come decision whether
to appeal the courts decision. or If
other remedies are available. The
invalidated order set general
floor of $31 for a 40-hour week.
Between $4,000 and 10000 wom-
en- and teen-agerS-moStly in the
white-collar class-are affected
out of $4,000 covered by the mini
mum wage law. Men are not af-
fected. The ruling voided one Of
six job categories, because 1t is
too broad in its coverage.
u. S. Employees Not Hit.
The decision does not apply to
Government employees. or women
who work for manufacturing
firms, in stores. hotels or restau-
rants. It covers mainly female
and teen-aged employees of tele-
phone and telegraph companies,
insurance firms, banks and doc
tors, dentists and lawyers Of
fees.
Yesterdays opinion reversed q
January. 1851. conviction of
w. w. Chambers. sr.. and w. w.
Chambers. jr., the undertaken, for
paying three employees less than
the minimum authorized by
"Wage Order No. T."
The decision, written by Judge
Andrew M. Hood, branded this
as "a miscellaneous catch-all Or
der, designed to cover all known
and unknown occupations not
otherwise covered" Chief Judge
Nathan Cayton concurred.
Judge Thomas D. Quinn dis
sented on the ground these
women workers had a sufficient
common denominator to be classi-
fed as white-collar workers.
Officials of the Wage Board
expressed astonishment at the
majority decision. The six cate
gories were set up in 1888 and
1889, after lengthy study. The
order in question was made more
explicit in 1949 but was still de-
signed to cover all jobs not spe-
ciflcally listed in any of the
others.
Other Groups Specified.
The other wage orders apply to
retail trade, public housekeeping
occupation. laundry. dry cleaning
and dyeing industry, beauty cul-
ture occupations and manufactur.
ing and wholesaling occupations
In addition to Office workers.
order No. 7 covers a few elevator
operators. janitors. maids and
cleaners.
The Appeals Court conceded the
Wage Board may use it's discre-
ton in the classification of occu-
pations. so long as there is a rea-
sonable basis for such classffica-
ton; but Jumping together of all
unclaSSified or miscellaneous occu-
pations as one occupation is not
a reasonable classification"
I'VE see no common or related
ground for grouping together. un-
der one occupation. teachers and
typists, dental assistants and
ushers, bookkeepers and janitors,"
the court said. "They have no
common or related duties and are
not employed in common or re-
lated industries. trades, businesses
or professions.
Miss Carrie L. Allgood, Wage
Board secretary. said that what
the court seems to anticipate is
breaking the order into three or
four more separate ones.
1T seems impossible" she de-
Iclared, Ito set up a wage order for
every little occupation"
Miss Allgood hastened to point
out this afternoon that the court
decision does not relate to mini
mum wage order No. 4 which be-
comes effective June %. No. 4
has to do with public housekeep-
ing occupations" such as watt
resses, charwomen. dishwashers
and similar occupations.
Sees Weeks of Delay.
Board Member Frank E. Weak
ley said working out new job
categories would be herculean
Job. He said it would take many
weeks of study, arguments, and
public hearings.
Mr.. Gray has 10 days in which
to file with the United States
Court of Appeals. If this court
agrees to hear arguments, the
Municipal Court of Appeals deci-
sion will be in allegiance, pending
the action.
If, however. nothing is done by
June %, the Municipal appeals
body will issue a mandate throw
ing out the voided order No. z
and leaving the workers covered
therein unprotected. It will then
tkA kI1a xryora hAor r5te inh - cot ,vv%