Legal Document

344 U.S. 218 73 Supreme Court Reporter 227 97 L.Ed. 260 UNITED STATESv.UNIVERSAL C.I.T. CREDIT CORP. et al. Number 47. Argued Nov. 18 and 19, 1952. Decided Dec. 22, Mr. John Federal KF105 F3 Davis, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Melbourne Bergerman, New York City, appellees. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case arises on an information under §§ 15 16(a) Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Statutes-at-Large 1060, as amended, 63 910, 29 U.S.C., 215, 216(a), United States Code Annotated KF65 U5 charging defendant corporation, its division operations manager two successive branch managers with violations minimum wage, overtime, record-keeping provisions Act.1 Thirty-two counts were laid: six failure § 6 Act to pay wages, twenty violation overtime 7, comply requirements 11. Counts 1—6 charge wage in separate weeks, one per week, but only employee any week three employees all. 7—26 week. A total eleven are involved, having been charged each nine employees. 27—32 four employees, being charged. Section 16 subjects employer, offending first time, a maximum fine $10,000 provision 15, would, District assumed, authorize $320,000 upon conviction this information.2 2 Rejecting reading whereby prosecutor could treat offense breach statutory duty owed single during workweek,3the granted defendant's motion dismiss all information. The court held that it is course conduct rather than items such constitutes punishable ordered consolidation acts set forth into counts, 6, 7 11.4 To review decision, Government brought here Criminal Appeals 34 1246, KF62 3731, 3731. 3 problem construction criminal not easy solution. What Congress has made allowable unit prosecution—the issue before us—cannot be answered merely by literal penalizing sections. Generalities about help us little. They rules law axioms experience. Boston Sand & Gravel company versus States, 278 41, 48, 49 52, 53, 170. do solve special difficulties construing particular statute. variables render every unique. See Jin Fuey Moy, 241 394, 402, 36 658, 659, 60 1061. For reason we may utilize, statute unambiguous, light relevantly shed words clause express purpose Congress. Very early Chief Marshall told us, 'Where mind labours discover design legislature, seizes thing from which aid can derived * *.' Fisher, Cranch 358, 386, 304. Particularly so when construe statutes defining entail stigma penalties prison. Not penal subject basic consideration legislation like other writings should given, insofar language permits, commonsensical meaning. But choice between readings what crime, appropriate, choose harsher alternative, require have spoken clear definite. We derive outlawry some ambiguous implication. 4 part scheme available enforcing Act. preventive remedy injunction individual or class actions restitution damages 16(b) also available. remedies more frequently invoked effective achieving purposes Of various must read relation other. asked addition infer employer's perform his obligations creates because civil liability expressly recognize right maintain action against employer damages. argument cuts both ways. If had wanted attach consequences easily said so, just no difficulty stating explicitly was owing employee. Instead balancing generalized experience legislation, regard specific history legislative process culminated now affords solid ground giving appropriate 5 When originally introduced Congress, bill out evolved penalty provisions, underpayments 11.5 Each at $500 defined constituted offense. As 11 offense.6 After measure would way through long there resulted elimination clauses, substitution fine. These striking changes themselves afford justifiable less harsh therefore reasonable offense-creating portions legislation. In addition, illuminating statements houses concerning separation offenses. Although deleted process, attacked debate precisely sort multiplication offenses number represents.7 Indeed goes beyond even original bills authorized. Underpayments same split information, serve basis counts. It self-deceptive claim answer possible our problem. inexplicitness weigh Government's cannot decisively face Because attracted respective authority cases pressed us. re Snow, 120 274, 556, 30 Blockburger 284 299, 180, 76 306. district judge correct rejecting conduct. Such compendiously treats arise singleness thought, action, deemed 'impulse,' conception recognized case, supra, page 302, 181, quoting Wharton's Law, 11th ed. 34. Merely illustrate, without attempting rule situations: wholly unjustifiable managerial decision certain activity work did compensation F.L.S.A. standards turned multiplicity considering underpayment 8 However, distinct piece workers paid requirement terms hourly rates, see Rosenwasser, 323 360, 65 295, 89 301, involves different conduct, constitute Thus, based these compounded unrelated work, kinds occurred workweek involved Whether aggregate offense, one, capable ascertainment bare allegations await trial facts. 9 find improper theory. draftsman indictment crime variety forms avoid fatal variance evidence. He cast several whether body facts gives rise one. sure, call elect or, asking particulars, specific. event, multiple necessary notice does conclusion insist variants 10 By affirming order prejudice amendment mean suggest increase after begun. precluded amending either meet exigencies evidence courses substantive provision. All decide correctly Without if offered warrants it, below affirmed. 12 Affirmed. 13 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 14 N Immigration Nationality Decisions think question violated determined reference he done speak 'course conduct.' That Court's terminology, Act's. requires 'each employees' 75 cents hour, prohibits him employing 'any 40 hours unless paid, keep records 'the persons employed him' hours, etc. 206, 207, 211(c), 211(c). And makes unlawful violate provisions' those 216(a). seems me pays hour fails employee, required established, scienter shown. equally wilfully him, crimes committed. single, isolated act. recurring continuous. affect month another month; way, way. continuous, follow pattern; they sporadic erratic. differentiate them. Nothing Perhaps committee receptive suggestion made. received there, here. course, horrendous possibilities envisaged almost law. prosecutors who enforce grand juries hear violations, Courts apply sanctions date oppressive reason. Yet until court, far learn, ever inventive genius conduct' 'employee' crime. enforcement 16. provides '(a)ny person willfully violates section 'unlawful (2) *; (5) 11(c) provides, 'Every shall engaged commerce production goods hour; '* employ longer forty receives employment excess above specified rate one-half times regular employed.' 'make, keep, preserve conditions practices maintained periods make reports therefrom Administrator prescribe regulation 102 F.Supp. 179, 186, modified Order dated March 10, 1952, R. 20. urges construed 'to punish imposed record kept.' Brief Page 10. none 26 underpayments, similar sufficient urge according workweek, last might kept With minor exception, alleged least prosecution, since time range seven weeks over months. unit, although charges, charges apiece. Whatever differences exist sustain immaterial, view disposition case. Appellee prescribes violations. rejected, sections act 305, 182, 306, where applied act'. 27(a) 27(b) S. 2475 H.R. 7200, 75th Cong., 1st sess. 27(a), read: labor-standard unlawful, offense.' 27(b), was: furnish Board authorized representative 81 Cong.Rec. 7792; 9507; 82 1828. Force added fact member House proposed adopted, vote division, specifically delete (then 22(a)). 1828—1839. thus came Conference clauses deleted, Senate deleted. Both versions still provided $500. accepted version, neither clause, raised $10,000. 2475, Sess., 23(a), 23(b), reported Committee, July 8, 1937; 7957; H.R.Rep.No.2182, 3d Sess. 5; 83 7450; Report, 16(a), 9249.

Classification Label: 6