Opinion ID: 2175047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction to reconsider the minimum wage rate the one-year limitation

Text: Congress enacted an amended minimum wage law effective February 1, 1967, that provided for a new general level of minimum income for private employment. It was the determination of Congress that such minimum wage rate should be arrived at over a period of two years beginning with not less than $1.25 an hour during the first year, $1.40 an hour during the second year, and not less than $1.60 an hour thereafter. The Act ordered the Commissioners to amend their outstanding wage orders or adopt initial wage orders for occupations not already covered to reflect the new general wage rate. [2] Congress further provided that: At any time after a wage order has been in effect for one year the Commissioners may on their own motion reconsider the wage rates set in such order. [3] The petitioners argue that D.C.Code 1967, § 36-403(a), [4] which established the rates, and D.C.Code 1967, § 36-406(a), [5] which allows reconsideration of existing orders, preclude such reconsideration of a wage rate if a new rate has been in effect less than one year. This approach to the Act ignores the fact that Congress was careful in its use of the terms wage order and wage rate. Section 36-406 (a), supra, is quite clear. It is the wage order and not a wage rate that must be in effect for one year. It is immaterial that the order establishing new wage rates was a ministerial act ordered by Congress [6] to raise any existing lesser wages. The history of the Act is helpful on this point. The Senate-enacted version [7] automatically increased the District of Columbia minimum wage rates each time the rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [8] increased. The conferees of the House and Senate deleted this language and substituted instead the rates as established in the Fair Labor Standards Act. [9] The Senate report on the Fair Labor Standards Act [10] states: The increase in the minimum wage to $1.60 beginning February 1, 1968,   represented a compromise between those who wanted $1.75 per hour minimum at an earlier date and those who opposed such an increase and wanted a later effective date of increase. The Act retained the escalation method of effectuating this newly determined level for minimum wages. The House report [11] indicates the escalation method was utilized to reduce the economic shock of reaching the minimum rate in one step. Accordingly, it is clear that the escalation provisions of the Act were an accommodation of the competing interests of management and labor. The Wage Board was expressively sensitive to the need for this accommodation. It stated: In order to allow employers to adjust to the increase and to lessen the impact of the increase so as not to threaten the stability of the industry, the Board ordered an interim rate of $1.80 an hour effective 60 days after the date on which the wage order is signed. We, therefore, hold that in reconsidering the wage rates established in the 1967 order the Wage Board did not act in excess of its authority as prescribed in § 36-406(a), supra.