HISTORY OF GENERAL EXEMPT/DNS mm II ; ■ , ■MK.I336 Business Library Class Book_ M&ftOOM OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF REVIEW HISTORY OF GENERAL EXEMPTIONS By Lucius Q. C. Lamar WORK MATERIALS NO. 75 CODE HISTORIES UNIT MARCH, 1936 9845 OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF REVIEW HISTORY OF GENERAL EXEi-IPTIONS By Lucius Q. C. Lamar CODE HISTORIES UNIT MARCH, 1936 ttAG/ jND By W. P. A. 1940 FOREWORD This history of General Exemptions was prepared "by Mr. Lucius Q,. C. Lamar, Exemption Group Supervisor of the Code Histories Unit, Mr. Robert C. Ayers in charge. The history, the operation, and the effects of th<= Executive and Administrative Orders which created general pxemo ion? have been treated in this work. The ten \i >ner?l Exemptions" as here used means thos^ tions which v*-^- not limited in their StppJ l to a uarticaiar coae< Work M? L .iials No. 74 on "Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and 2 Amendments, Conditional Orders of Approval" contains allied material. The exhibits referred to in the text are not here reproduced. They may be found in the NRA files under the title NRA Studies Special Exhibits, Work Materials No. 75. At the back of this report will be found a brief statement of the studies undertaken by the Division of Review. L. C. Marshall, Director, Division of Review March 25, 1936 9845 -i- TABLE _ OF OCtWZEKTS Page Summary 1 General Exemptions: A. Exemption to members not participating in establishing code. Executive Order of July 15, 1933, No. 6205-B 3 B. Co-o-oeratives. Executive Order of October 23, 1933, No. 6355 9 C. Towns under 2500 -oonulation. Executive Order of October 23, 1933, No. 6354 13 D. Service Trades. Executive Order of May 27, 1934, No. 6723 16 E. Exemptions as to Sales to Hospitals. Administrative Order of January 23, 1934, Order No. X-4 and others 20 F. Handicaooed Workers. Executive Order of February 17, 1934, No. 6606-F 25 G. Ho me workers. Executive Order of May 15, 1934, No. 6711-A 29 H. Apprentices. Executive Order of June 27, 1934, No. 6750-C 33 I. Sheltered Workshops, Administrative Order of March 3, 1934, Order No. X-9 and others 42 J. Government Contracts Executive Order of March 14, 1934, No. 6646 44 9845 -li- Page K. Exemption from Assessments. Administrative Order ox"* April 14, 1934, No. X-20 and others 47 L. Territorial Possessions. Administrative Order of July 2, 1234, No. X-60 and others 52 EXHIBITS (These exhibits are not reproduced in mimeographed form. Thoy are on file in bound form in NRA Studies Special Exhibits, Work Materials No. 75) 1-A Memo from Malcolm Sharp re origin of Executive Order 62^5-B 1-3 Memo from 3. Lotwin re origin of Executive Order 6205-3 2 Executive Order 6205-B - Granting exemptions to non-participating members 3 Memo from L. J. Bernard re Interpretation of Executive Order 6205-3 4 Memo from L. J. Bernard re Interpretation of Executive Order 6205-3 4-A Reports of Exemptions under Executive Order 6205-3 from Construction Unit, Industry Section No. I 4-3 Reports cf Exemptions under Executive Order 6205-3 in industries other than Construction Unit from Industry Section I 4-C Reports cf Exemptions under Executive Order 6205-3 from Industry Section II 4-D Report of Exemptions under Executive Order 6205-B from Industry Section IV 4-E Reports cf Exemptions under Executive Order 6205-3 from Industry Section V 5 Executive Order 6355 - Exemptions to Cooperative Organizations 6 Executive Order 6606-a - Supplement to and Amplification of Executive Order 6355 7 Administrative Order X-35 - Definition of Farmers' and Consumers' Cooperatives 8 Administrative Order 182-11 and 106-11 - Interpretation of Administrative Order X-35 9845 -in- Exhibits (Continued) 9 Administrative Order X-98 - Interpreting Executive Order 5cC6~A Insofar as it applies to Allowance of brokerage commissions to cooperatives 10 Bulletin No, 3 - The President's Reemraloyraent Program 11 Executive Order 6354 - Exempting towns of less than 2300 population 12 Executive Order 6710 - Amendment of Executive Order 6754 13 Administrative Order X-72 - Supplementing Executive Order 6710 and designating trades and industries subject to exemptions 14 Executive Order 6723 - Exemptions to Service Trades 15 Executive Order 6756-A - Authorizing local codes from unqualified service trades 16 Administrative Order X-53 - Relating to service trades, the subject of Executive Order 6723 17 Letter from Executive Committee of Cleaning and Dyeing Trade to the President attempting to withdraw assent tc code 18 Reply of Eugh S. Johnson, Administrator, to letter from Executive Committee (Exhibit 17) 19 Administrative Order X-4 - Granting exemptions to Hospitals 20 Administrative Order X-5 - Extending effective date cf administrative Order X-4 21 Administrative Order X-8 - Granting permanent stay of Administrative Order X-4 in connection with certain industries 22 Executive Order X-24 - Staying provisions of Admin- istrative Order X-4 with respect to the Signalling Apparatus Subdivision of the Electrical Manufacturing Industry 23 Administrative Order X-39 - Modifying the Adminis- trative Order X-4 and excepting therefrom certain industries 24 Executive Order 6606-P - Granting exemptions to Handicapped Workers 25 Instructions from U. S. Labor Department dated November 8, 1934, relative to Handicapped workers 26 Report from U. S. Labor Department dated December 9, 1935, covering Handicapped workers 9845 -IV- Exhibits (Continued) 27 Pest Code Analysis, Serial No, 78, by Research and Planning Division, of Cede Provisions re- garding Handicapped Employees 28 Executive Order 6711-a - Exemption to Home- workers 29 Report from U. S. Renartment of Labor dated June 1, 1934, regarding Home Jerk 30 Report from U. S. Department of Labor dated December 9, 1935, upon exemption to Home dorkers 31 Form of Apprentice Contract prepared by the Federal Committee on Apprentice Training 32 Bulletin No. 1 of Federal Committee en Apnrentice Training 33 Excerpt from Report of July 25, 1935 of the Federal Committee on Apprentice Training 33-A Report Entitled the Apprentice Training Program Under the N. R.a. by the Federal Committee on Apprentice Training 33-3 Post Code Analysis, Serial Ho, 74, of Provisions regarding Learners and Apprentices 33-C Post Code Analysis, Serial No. 74-a, Supplementing Analysis of Provisions regarding Learners and Apprentices 33-D Executive Order No. 6750-C - "^emptier to Apprentices 33-E General Regulation No. 1 re Apprentice Training bv Secretary of Labor 33-F Bulletin No, 2 of the Federal Committee on Apprentice Training 34 Administrative Order X-9 - Exemption to Sheltered Workshops 35 Administrative Order X-28 - Appointing National Sheltered Workshops Committee, etc. 36 Administrative Order X-59 - Authorizing the National Sheltered Workshop Committee to Issue the N.R.A. Insignia 37 Administrative Order X-31 - Amending and Supple- menting Administrative Order X-59 38 Executive Order 6646 - Requiring Certificate of Compliance on Government Contracts 39 Administrative Order X-48 - Exemption in con- nection with quotations made to Governmental Agencies 40 Executive Order No. 6767 - Modification of Executive Order 6646 9845 _v- Exhibits (Continued) 41 Memorandum from Laurence a. Knapp, dated June 6, 1934, regarding assessments 42 Executive Order 6678 - Relating to Collection of Expenses of Code Administration 43 Administrative Order X-30 - Regulations Governing Collection of Expenses of Code Administration 44 Administrative Order X-36 - Regulations Governing Collection of Expenses of Code Administration Administrative Order X—36-1 - Interpretation of Paragraph III of Administrative Order X-36 Administrative Order X-36-2 - Interpretation of Exemption in Paragraph III, of Adminis- trative Order X-36 45 Administrative Order X-60 - Exemptions of Trades and Industries in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, etc. 46 Administrative Order X-80 - Approving Perm of Administrator's Territorial Cooperation Agreement 47 Office Memorandum No. 356 - Authorizing the Deputy Administrator for Alaska to decide Applications for Exemptions 48 Office Memorandum No. 357 - Prescribing pro- cedure for Deuuty Administrator in the Exercise of the Authority given under 0. M. No. 356. 9845 -VI- - 1 - S'JMi - This is a brief history of aiercil exemptions from code provisions. The torn ;l ge . L i ti i" i re used means these exemptions not United in th is p plication to a particu- lar code but extend either to all codified industries or a group or class of industries. For exauole, Executive Order 6205-3, allies to an;- end all codes thereafter approved. 3xecutive Or- r 6711-A, which grants an exemption to permit home work, applies only te those codes which prohibit home worl hainly, the purpose of this work has "been to place in a single volume the essential features of all the general exemptions t srvo as a handbook or starting point for a more comprehensive stud;, of any ' bhe particular 3xeraptions. Therefore, an endeavor lias bee i e . e to develop briefly a clear idea of eacli of the gener- al sx motions. This involved, first the background or conditions which made necessary the issuance of the particular order; second, ~a~"s-a:.iraa:g- of the order itself; anarts omitted is as follows: "Any c;. r o f fair competition approved by me shall be deemed in full force and effe^ the effective date as stated in the code; but after the approval of a code and as an incident to the immediate enforcement thereof, hearings may be ^iven ~uy the Administrator or his designated representativ t per- sons (hereby defined t: include natural persons, partner- ships, associatims r corporations) who have not in per- son ;r by a representative participated in establishing" : isenting to a cede, but who ^re directly affected thereby, ant --ho claim that applications of the code in articular instances are unjust tc th ap-^ly for an -reception to, :r exemption fr ra, or modifi- cation Df the code. Such persons s: applying, within ten days after the affective date of tha code, shall be <_iven an op -rtunity for a hearing and determinati >n of the issues raised prior t incurring any liability tc en- forcement of the code, and the Administrator shall, if justice requires, stay the application of the code to all similarly affected pending a determination by me of the issues raised. "(3) .-vs will be observed fr ... the Executive Grd^r, the mere filing .ft licati:n within the ten day period had the effect of re- lievi * . slicant from the operation of the c do until an opportunity had been ^ivon for a hearin... No preliminary showing ( ) So r ndums fr 5har , ' rmerlj .'-the Legal Divisi n, .mice Lot-in 1 th Legal Division, Inhibits 1-a and 1-H ictively. (3) Executive Older 6205-3 Exhibit 2. 0845 5 - ■upon the merits was required. 2his relief was limited* however, only to th ■ rticipate in establishing the code or had net consented the ret . III. Construct! n of the 0.x .or (l) Amendments to cod^s ceuir he stayed under the Executive Order It was held that since an amended code "became pro tanto a new code that the Executive Order w?s applicable to amendments; (4) hence members of the particular industry who had not consented to such amendment or participated in its adoption could file their objections within the ten day period, in which event a stay of the amendment became operative as to them. •./ho were the persons "who have net in person or "by representative participated in establishing or consenting to a code?" (2) I : articroati:n Under this Order a person who merely appeared at the public hearing on the cede but objected to. the code could net be said to have "participated in the establishing of or consenting to a code", unless his objection was sustained and the code amended according- ly; (3) hence persons so appearing and objecting to a code were eligible to file application within the ten day period. (3) He- : r e s en ta t i on In order to novo been eligible -as a nonparticipant the appli- cant must not have participated either in person or by a representa- tive at the hearing. .'.'hether or not a person was represented at the hearing was ordinarily a question of express authorization. However, questions did arise as to whether such representation ex- isted even though no express authority was conferred; for example, whether the persons appearing on behalf of the trade association or other sponsoring organization represented the individual members of such organization to the extent that a member would be deemed to have participated in t he establishment of the code. The Retail Jewel- ry Code provided that the Code Authority might make recommendations (4) Memorandum from L. J. 3ernard, Legal Council for the Review Division, to 3. 11. Jeffrey, dated September 27, 1934, in re application for exemption of Click V/atch Company, Retail Jewelry Trade (Order No. 143-24), narked Exhibit No. 3. (5) Se« memorandum from L. J. Bernard to 3. Ivl. Jeffrey, Review Division, dated July 27, 1934, Exhibit 4. 9845 based on conditi as in that tn . hich val of the Admin- ist. rati? l part of that code. Wher t . its r«c unmendatii ti6 pursuant to such pro- vir.. ... had be .1 ap roved an,' therefore "become a part of the . . ■. . x ... t the C .. Lthi rity as tc sucli action represent- itir« industry and all members thereof had therefore partici- re sen tat ion in the establishment of such amendment, hence was inoperative as to a member even th fil~s his objections within the 10 da; 1 riod.(6) (4) '.Thoth.r acti n is that of an exemption or stay- It \.ill be noted that the Order grants relief to persons "who Ly for an except! n to, or exenroticn fr - .:.. , ox a modification of : de» M There seems nc doubt that the relief pending such hearin t) t if an exem tion as distinguished from a stay rot the express language of the Order but fr 1 th express definiti :: . f the term "exemption" which applies t. rulings which release an individual^ group or class within an industry from the full operati a code provision as distinguished from that of the teiv. "stay" -hich applies t: not less than an entire industry. (6A) vertheless the relief provided \)y the Order was almost univeiv sally referred to as a " stay under executive Order 6"!03-I" . The term "stay" nc doubt was adopted because of th phraseolc jy f the last sentence of the Order, i.e. "and the Administrator shall if justice requires, s tay the application of the code tc all similarly affected." ..'hile generally known as a "stay" the relief was however handled as an exemption and orders terminating the "st-: re signed by the Division Administrators. IV. Operation and Zffect The relief provided by the Order was availed of quite generally bj non-assenting members of the industry. Hearings in cases delayed with the result that many members' of industry enjoyed - is for considerable periods of time and in many instances during the entire life of the code. Under the Order the sxemptions became operative upon the mere filing of the applicati Lthout "jssity rf making a showing. ile reports from all industries have not been received, reports hav ■ ceived from 410 industries. The;/ comprise Exhibits 4 A, (6) ndum fr . L. J. Bernard, 3xhibit No. 3 finition of "Exemption" - Office Manual • 1 1 1 , Sec. 3210:ard "S$ay" cti n 15211 - See also Review Divisi:n Prece - I . 87, - Office 1 III, S-cti .1 32ft . .w x- _ ** *. ; . • 9845 4B, 4 0, 4 D, and 4 3. Un er^xecutive Order, 317 applications were made. li- I . ■ ' ' in 220 c^.scs. In 287 cases no final acti b< • the sta; s remained in effect during the life ; : c . (?) She report £~om In w i.r, • ■■- ' -i n 1 is quite complete and is therefore susceptible y£ forth r analysis. It includes the basic Construction Code and 23 suppl ;,. itarj codes of the Construction Industry. The report also includes ) other industries in that Sec- tion. An analysis of this report shows the following: ITo. i c -cs involved 33 i. cf applicatirns 455 [Ho. of cases in which final disposition has been made 135 He. of cases in which m dis- position has been made .370 Periods jf stays in 13e cases: I Leas than one month from the effective date of cede 2 From 1 tc 2 months 3 Prom 7 to 3 months 26 Prom 8 to 9 months 3 Prom 9 to 10 months 86 Prom 10 to 11 months 64 Prom 11 to 13 months 1 V. Conclusi. n Prom the above it will be noted that a large number of concerns obtained complete immunity from liability under codes by the mere filing of an application without the necessity of making even a prima facie showing, many f r ? long period of time and in the majority of cases during the entire lifo cf the code. 7/here hearings were held the stays wore in most instances terminated, indicating that most of such applicants were not entitled to relief. It would therefore appear that some provision should have been made for a prompt deter- mination of such applications. Possibly a general order requiring supplementary or post— Code hearin k s upon such applications within a (7) The disposition of 10 -applications not shown 9845 - :• ■ . • ffectiv dates f c 1 have met id • const i tut 1 nal requirements and at th same time in. >t lisposition. A si. 1 hearing might hr.ve "been ^.llc-. bers Ejecting to a code* For members • coi. . ' id such hearing, pr vision could have "been made f factual data and briefs to 1'.. : A on or "before the • . of such hearing or rithin such -jrescribed period. 9345 ~ 9 - 13 . EXEMPTIONS SO QOOP3SBATIVE S f I. Origin of Order II. Executive and Administrative Orders III, Administration .. IV, Operation and Effect V, Conclusion I . Origin of Order There has "been in existence for a number of years cooperative or- ganizations. The genuine cooperative is ordinarily the Farmer's Coopera- tive or the Consumers' Cooperative. They are usually incorporated. The Farmers 1 Cooperative performs the function of a marketing agency for the farm products of its members and in many cases also acts as a purchasing agency, usually for supplies used in the production of the products marketed by the organization. As a purchasing agency the organizations secure the quantity dis- count which is passed on to the members, usually in the form of patron- age dividends. These dividends are paid at fixed periods and represent the net income after the deduction of administrative and fixed expenses and are payable to the member in amounts proportionate to their respec- tive purchases. Consumers cooperatives operate on the same- principle except that it acts merely as a purchasing agency and does not include the marketing feature. There are other so-called cooperatives which contain some ,but not all of the features of the above described organiza- tions, as, for example, establishments which allow discounts to pur- chasers but which do not act solely as agents of the members. A number of codes contain provisions designed to limit the payment of rebates, refunds and unearned discounts to purchasers. It can, there- fore, be readily seen that such provisions prohibit or might be construed to prohibit the operations of cooperatives. -In order to permit coopera- tives to continue to function the Department of Agriculture recommended an Executive Order excepting cooperatives from such code provisions. As a result of such recommendations, the President on October 23, 1933 signed Executive Order No. 6355. l/ II. Executive and Administrative Orders This Executive Order provided that no code or agreement theretofore or thereafter approved should be construed to prohibit the payment of patronage dividends in accordance with law by any bona fide and legi- timate cooperative organization, including farmers' cooperatives, pro- vided such patronage dividends were paid out of actual earnings and were not paid at the time the member makes the purchase from the cooperative organizations* : It will be noted that the above Order is not in the form of an exemption. As to codes thereafter formulated it constituted a general policy that no code should contain provisions prohibiting the payment of patronage dividends by cooperatives under the conditions prescribed* 1_/ Copy of Executive Order No. 6355, see Exhibit No. 5. 9845 - 1- - However i as to those codes previously approved containign provisions prohibiting the payment of patronage dividends or susceptible of that construction, the order operated to relieve cooperatives from such pro- visions and to that extent amounted to a general exemption. Die immunity of cooperatives from code provisions was further en- larged by Executive Order 6606-A, dated February 17, 1934. l/ This Crder declared (l) Thar, no tdto vision in any code or agreement thereto- fore or thereafter approved should be construed to make it a code vio- lation to sell to or through any bona fide and legitimate cooperative or any intervening agency of such cooperatives; (2) That no code should be construed to prevent such cooperatives from being entitled to receive or distribute to its members as patronage dividends or otherwise the proceeds derived from any discounts, commission, rebate or dividends ordinarily or by code provision, allowed to purchasers of wholesale or middle— man quantities; (3) The Administrator was authorized to determine, after such hearings ana proceedings as he may. deem necessary, whether in any doubtful oase, an organization is or is not a bona fide and legi- timate cooperative organization entitled to the benefits of this Order* Pursuant to the above Executive Order the Administrator by an Order dated May 18, 1934, 2/ entitled "Definition of Farmers, and Consumers Cooperative" No. X-35, prescribed the following conditions to be ful- filled in order that such organizations be entitled to the protection of the Executive Order: (l) Be organized under laws of a state, terri- tory of the District of Columbia; (2) Permit each member owning one paid share of membership one vote only in matters affecting management of the organization, unless otherwise provided by the law under which it is incorporated; provided a central or regional association made up of cooperative associations may permit voting based upon volume of busi- ness done by members with regional association, or on the number of mem- bers in the member association; (3) Operate on a cooperative basis for the mutual benefit of members, and all income, after oroviding for re- serves and dividends on stock not. to exceed 8fo, must be distributed to members or shareholders on patronage basis at stated periods not more frequently than semi-annually; (4) lion-member business not to exceed in value the member business during any fiscal year; (5) Permit members access to records to determine compensation of officers ani employees, and no salaries or commissions are to be paid except for actual ser- vices; (6) Distribute patronage dividends to members according to amount of business with the association; may permit such dividends of a non- member to accumulate until they equal the value of a share of stock when the same may be issued; patronage dividends must not be made in form of refund at time of purchase; no evidence of any such dividends b5 r agree- ment or representation to distribute a definite amount may be made; (7) Not more than 3$ of the Capital raised may be allowed for service or organizers; (8) Conduct its affairs in the interest of the members. The control or management may not be by non-cooperative organizations or persons to whom surplus savings or unreasonable compensation are paid; and may not be required to buy commodities from a specified non-eoopera- concern; (9) Comply with codes for industries in which they operate, \J . Copy of Executive Order No. 6606-A, See Exhibit No. 6 2/ Copy of Administrative Order, Exhibit No. 7. 9845 - 11 ~ Oo June IS, ] : ' , i *uU >n i : roretPtion ,,T as r issued (Administra- tion Order Fos, IS.?-!" 1 r . ; l 6-ll), (*) to h 'feet that Administrative Order X-?? aooliod to any tons "• ad legitimate cooperative and was not limited to farmers' end consumers' organizations. This ruling was made necessary because of the doubt created by the cooti^n of X-35, i.e., "De- finition of Farmers' end Consumers' Cooperatives." On October 12, 1934 Administrative Order Fo.. X-98 was issued for the ourpose of clarifying the provisions of "Executive Order No. 6606-A. Order X-93 deals with brokerage commissions, providing that no code shall be construed or a^olled to make it a violation thereof for a member to oay a brokerage commission to a bona fide end legitimate coooerative oer- forming the function for which other oersors may -orooerly be oaid comoensa- tion, and that no cognizance shall be taken of the fact that such coopera- tive will distribute its earnings, including such brokerage commissions, to its members in the form of oatronage dividends, or the fact that such aerabers may be the rrarchasers of the oroducts in commotion with which such commissions were realized. (**) III. Administration In accordance with Office morandum 205, natters relating to coopera- tive organization ra ?re referred' to Division 8, ~>f which Mr. Linton h. Collins was the Division Administrator. This division was later named the Public Agencies Division. The furnter oersonnel was as follows: Assistant Deouty Administrator, V. J. Clarke Legal: Howard 3. Wahrenbrock, S3 r dney 3. Frince, Peter Seitz, William Wise Research and Planning: James Forter Davis Labor: Rose Schneidermann, Sydney Sufrin Consumers: The late Mrs. Mary Humsey, Mercer G-. Johnston Industrial: Salter White IV. Q-cera-tion and Effect There has been considerable objection on the part of some industries to the orotection afforded cooperatives. The controversy was oarticularly acute in the Salt Manufacturers' Industry, the Code Authority for that industry being oooosed to the recognition of certain coooerative organiza- tions as bona fide distributors of their oroduct. It was orincipally due to this controversy that Administrative Order X-98 (dealing with brokerage commissions) was issued. There ^as also objection from the Pood Industry, the code for this industry having definitely orohibited the -oayment of brokerage to buyers ->r to agents of buyers. (*) Administration Order ITos. 182-11 and 196-11, Exhibit Ho. (**) Order X-98, See Exhibit Po. 9 9345 ~ 12 ~ Par •' Jtion *»aa r -tec 1 against Administrative Order X-°8, blic A s Division having received in the month of May, l r 35, r 100 letters requesting a reconsideration of this Order. To meot these -prote. ossicle -revision of Orders X-35 and X- 9 8 was referred to a committee consisting of ilessrs. Walton Hamilton, member the National Industrial Recovery Board, Willard L. Thorp, member of the Advisory Council and Mr. Linton li, Collins, r ; vision Administrator. A t '. ve draft of a crooosed ruling was -ovir^ved. excluding the so-called commercial cooperatives from the definition of "bona fide and legitimate cooperatives as that term v;as usod in the Executive Orders. No formal order was actually issued, however, due to the fact that the . sion of the Schechter Case was rendered before final action "by the Committee. V. Conclusion Coonerative organizations seem to have become firmly established in this country. In the aggregate they carry on a large volume of business. This is especially true in the 'Jest. A mere c error ehensive understand! ng of the subject would reauire a suecial study of cooperatives. While much of the controversy involved the matter of determining what was to be con- sidered the genuine and legitimate coooerative, actually it is believed re was a more basic conflict between the two methods of business* Many of the code provisions were" designed to promote the welfare of the particular industry with the resultant advantage to all the members of the particular industry. This is particularly true with re^rarc- to the various orovisions relating to -orices and terms of sale. On the other hand the cooperative cuts squarely through organization by industries to the detriment of the industry but to the corresponding advantage of the producer or the consumer or both. The immediate benefit therefore to the consumer and producer is apparent and ao^ears to have been demonstrated by the growth of large cooperative organizations. Whether the cooperative ~hod is of benefit to business or society generally or 'whether its ulti- mate effects might be detrimental even to the producer or consumer is a more debatable question. It is -crobable that cooo "-rativ >s have not de- veloped to a -oint where their effects on general business can be meas\ired and at this stage of development, one's ooinion is governed largely by his basic philosophy of social economy. A preliminary draft of a History of Cooperatives has been proposed by the Jublic Agencies Division. Considerable information contained herein was obtained from this preliminary draft. . C. EXEMPTIONS TO Bi ffLOYaitS 113 TOT [S OF LESS TH AII 2500 POPULATION I. Re' -tin; to Presidents Reen plo yment Agreera at II. He"! ..tin.- to Cooes III. Operation and Effect I , Relating to P resi de it 1 s Reem ploy ment Agreement The national Recovery Act, approved Jane 15, 1933, authorized the president to enter into and reprove voluntary agreements with persons engaged in a trade or industry and with labor, trade or industrial associations, relating to any trade or industry. The president's Reemployment Agreement m as issued pursuant thereto, to remain in effect until the approval of a code "by the President to which the signatory he came subject or until substitutions of any of the provisions of the Agreement (paragraph I). In paragraph (4) of the Agreement it was provided .that the maximum hours fixed in Paragraph (2) and (3) thereof, were not to .apply to establishments employing not more than t"0 persons in towns of less than 2500 population which towns were not part of a larger trade area. 1 II. Relating' to Codes In Executive Order ~ T o. 6354,^ dated October 23, 1933,. it was stated that the purpose of the exemption thereby conferred was intended to re- lieve small business enterprises in small towns from fixed obligations which might impose exceptional hardship but that it was expected that all such enterprises would conform to the fullest extent possible ,_ 7ith the requirements which would have ueen otherwise obligatory upon them. The Order provided that the president's Reemployment Agreement should not be held to apply to employers engaged only locally in retail trade or in local service industries (not in interstate com lerce) ^ho do not employ more than five persons and are located in towns of less than 2500 population (according to the 1930 Federal Census) which are not in the immediate trade area of a citj. r of a larger population except that employers who- have signed the Agreement and desire to continue to comply therewith may do so. It was further provided that the exemp- tion should also apply to the same extent to those employers signing the. PRA but at that time subject to a substituted code from those ob- ligations not voluntarily assumed under such code. It will be noted that Executive Order 6354 differs principally from the provision in PRA in that: (1) PRA relates to all establish- ments, the Order effects only retail trade and local service indus- tries; (2) PRA limits the exemption to establishments employing not more than two persons, the Order limits the exemption to tnose employ- ing not more than five persons; (3) the former releases employers solely from the provisions of PRA whereas the latter releases signatory parties Bulletin Ho. 3 containing PRA, Exhibit ITo. 10 2 Executive Order TTo. 5354, Exhibit ! T o, 11 9845 ~ 14 - . ;. ut to the came extent from i'-na not voluntarily assumed by them under . Executive Order No. 6710, approved cnly locally in retail tradr ^r local ?cv:. i trades who operate not more than three estahlish- ats in tow.:.-- ->i' ] 2E ulation and not in the immediate ■ a of a larger town woul( t from the Presidents Re- • .ize provisions of approved codes relating to hours, wages, minimum pricee of idise or services and collec- tion o ents, except insofar i loyers might signify their intention to he bound. * The effect of t: ndment to extend the exemption to employ- net n ree establishments rather than five, as provided I previous Order and also' to exempt employers not only from the provisions of PRA but from hour, wage, minimum price and assess— mont r->].icction provisions of codes as well, 4 linistrative Order X~7- dated August .6, 1934, prescribed rules and regulations relating to the application of Executive Order 671 r and dpcignates the "retail op local service trades" to be: Ba :ing (retail), I r Vehicle StoEo.go and Parking, Retail Eoo'd and Grocery, tail Jewelry, Retail Tobacco, Retail Trade (including "rug and Boole- sellers), Barber Shop, Eowling and Billiard ^crating Tr-.u::e , Cleaning and Dyeing L ■ , Real Estate Ir^Lrerage, Shoe Reovdlaer, Hotel, and - taurr.nt Industry and the following industries or trades not then :ifipd, Confectionprs , Milk at Retail, Beauty Parlors and such other ■ -r in' ustries as the Administrator would from time to time design- I r "town" was also defined and the conditions un er which "t n - of less than 2500 population" were deemed to be "in the immediate tra a" of a larger city. Manufacturing n holesaling were ec- cluded from the Order. The method of relief was provided for employe not included in the Bxemption but who claimed to be injured from com- petition of the-- ted". Those engaged both in one of the above £ t».d trader, or industries and a business not so included, where aperatiohs were not readily segregable were exempt only wncre the Lne3s covered by that order constituted tnc employer's principal line such • ict constituted more than 50 per cent of the gross sales, •e tiie business was segregable only the department whose princi • :s (as above definod) covered 'by the trades rr industries enumer- d above were exempted. When part of a business was exempted the em- pl as not liable for t aents bas,ed upon tliat part. Euro loyers wit . cidrs to the extent not exempted were entitled to die— .ia. Lnistrative ' - . 6-10, dated May 29, 1934, it was ruled d in the Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade were bound by t] 1 - btry regardless of the si7e of the town in iness was located. III. fyp.T l and Effect ■ ■' ■' ' rders there v/as littl . r administrative Executive Order 671 , Exhibit No. 12 • X-72 , ] xfcibit * T o . 13 15 -15- action. The Code Authorities investigated and followed up the matter of what to\ms were entitled to the exemptions. The United States Census records were ordinarily conclusive upon the question of whether or not the population of a particular town was less than 2500. However Adminis- trative Order X-72-1, dated August 28, 1934, recited that the census of 1930 listed the town of Glasgow, Montana as a town of less than 2500 but that it appearing that the population of that town was then in excess of 2500 it was ordered that for the purposes of the administration of Executive Order 6710 such town should he deemed to have a population in excess of 2500. Question also arose as to whether a -particular community was within the immediate trade area of a larger town. This arose in a number of instances concerning factory communities located outside the boundaries of towns. However these controversies were usually settled without the necessity of official rulings. On the whole the exemption to establish- ments in towns of less than 2500 population seemed to have become oper- ative with very little complications. 9845 - 16 - I. Cri, II. Ih "^cutivc ive Ore err ct I . a of Order. $•: ' , .■.,-" of tiler tr .-.ductri s which t>erfor rv Lc< • rber - . • tc. At the ti rot of , e doubt ~ by representatives of ' industries whether or not, in vie - - of t urely local or int ter, the 3 " ■ I - astrial Recovery Act wa.s applicabl Drder a C Cor the Barber Shop Trade (l T o. 591 pr f - . t this ccv-.r should not become ef: effective until certain co - .. illed, including the requirement e Authorit; the boundari r f trde areas , establij dnistrative I j r such tr;e are;.,? i ;hat the Code Author to a price stabilization agreement in such trrde area with the Pre • . . Local Administrative Be le than 7;j ; ' of the nun f members of the tr / e in such. area. i(l). Similar co: iitions were embodied in the Code for the Laundry Trade. (2) The 3odi for service trades were generally inef ectual, even istri '... which cod .- become eifective. These industries f numerous small enterprise s. exists in ohis branch of indusl • hably a higher percentage of one-man companie ; rietorc and those employing only one nan, than ir. ar I ler branch of try. Ac a result, organization in these industries was icult. The net result was an almost complete bri n in code ace. A more detailed e'escrivtion of the conditions prevailing at Li be found in the Code Histories for industries. II. Execut . Ad.-.i.- istrati ve Qr '.e rs In r rdcr to meet this situation, Executive Order lie. 6723 was by the President on May 26, 193d. It provided th I pro- " in ci service trades r r industries as should there-after be designated by the Administrator were suspended, except ;e of Child Labor, Liinimura Hour, Llinimum Fay and the im ry ■Lens of Section 7(a) and 10 (b) of the National Industrial ." , r vL 13 locality in which 3d' of the me •- si .. tec tr.de or industry ... ofier to abide by code f t locali ;y, the Administrator, after approval of (1) Vol. IX, page 331 - I Vol. VI, " - d Voir, Co e . - 17 - such code, v/as authorised bo i ter Into men agreements. (3) In the letter of recoranendation, ' " a ~b tto Administrator to the President, it was ■ L studies of the operation and effect of codes for cert . service tra es an<3 industries indicated the necessity for relievi the ITRA of th excessive administrative burden in securing full su] -ort oi these codes ind to permit of more effective administration oi other codes having greater concern with the industrial structure, which had been unduly hampered thereby. By Executive Order No. 675S-A, (4) dated June 25, 1934, the President offered to enter into an agreement with members of such service trades not theretofore codified, on condition that in any locality eighty-five per cent of the members thereof should agree to abide oy a local code of trade practices sug ested by them for that locality. Executive Order 6723, having provided that the Administrator should designate the trade:, and industries included under the Order the following Administrative Drders were issued: Order No, ,X-27 , dated May 38, 1934, designating Motor Vehicles; Storage & Packing; Bowling & 3illiards; Barber Shop; Cleaning & Dyeing; Advertising Display Installation cc Advertising Distri- buting Trade. Order No. X-50, dated June 15, 1934, Laundry. Order No. X-54 , date,' June 28, 1334, Hotel. On June PS, 1934, Administrative Order X-53, v/as issued pre- scribing rules and regulations with respect to the operation of Execu- tive Order 6723, including the conditions under which members subject to tae Order were entitle:, to display the Hue Ea^le. It was also provided that al-. parts of the designated codes, to the extent nec- essary, were in effect for the purposes of the operation of Execu- tive Order 6723, except tra^e practice and code administration pro- visions. (5) As previously stated the Barber Shop and the Lauidry Trade Codes were not to become operative until the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed in the Order of Approval, . At the time of the above Executive Order, those conditions had. not been fulfilled, and " ( 3] Executive Order Nof 6723, Exhibit No 7 T4T " (4) Executive Order No. 6756-A, Exhibit No, 15 (5) Administrative Ordt;r X-53, Exhibit No. 16 9845 - 18 - r .. • ffective. " - Lstrative Or- i such provisi as affect! r rarpose of op- Executive Ord^r 6723. III. Qnoi-'tj. .i "r. . ct . cutivo Ci'd^r was n t favorably received by the trades ->nd industries affected. Considerable eff.ort bad previously been Le tc organize theso industries more effectively. Many were en- tablish minimum price proyisi ns. A series of con- ferences being held in various parts f the United States with f. view of remedying the breakdown in code compliance in th^ Hotel Industry, and a movement was n foot to establish minimum rates. The Order in question, of course, nullified all such efforts. Cede Authorities in the industries affected were, in effect, abolished by the Order. There was, therefore, considerable resent- ■ :'r these industries. On June 20, 1934, the Executive Committee of the Code Author- ity for the Cleaning and Dyeing Trade wrote the President' "the. t this a Authority considers that the code for the Industry was no longer in force and effect with respect to any of its provisions and that, so far as it was within their power, the as&ent to this code i s the reby wi thdrawn . " ( 6 ) On June 36, 1934, the Administrator replied that inasmuch as the administrative provisions :f the Cleaning and Dyeing Code were suspended by Executive Order 6723, the Cede Authority authorized under such provisions was, accordingly, suspended and could not, therefor^, at that time, be deemed tc be representative cf that ie or have authority to act on its behalf, hence the assent to this code could not be withdrawn by that body. (7) Pursuant tc the Executive Order, local codes wore submitted by the following industries anc 1 trades - Cleaning and Dyeing submitted approximately 54 local codes, rly all of which contained provisions for minimum prices. Shoe Rebuilding Industry submitted 277 local cedes, nearly all' liich contained provisions for minimum prices. Barber Shop Industry submitted 277 local codes, all of lch contained requests for minimum prices. C letter fr ] ' Committee - Exhibit ITo. 17 ( 7 ) Copy ve letter - Exhibit ITo. 18 9845 ~ 1'. - t yr Veb ... Storage r-ubmit ,ed 3. LC'i : I ' 1. astries not nenticned submitted no codec. The policy of ili-lA was rut .;o approve provisions for esta'olish- ing minimum --.rices. The.~ei>re , of lo.al codes submitted, there were approved onlj- four in the Shoe He uilding and two inCleaning andDye- iu". Ir do. The codes o/v roved did not cx>nt:i.: minimum ^rice -orovisions, (3) Since toe Code Authority vac- the enforceraent as well as the administ rative agency of industry, the elimination of such bodies resulted in still greater disregard for these code provisions re- maining in effect, i.e., labor crovisio.'S . Coc'e enforcement in those trades or incus-tries ^ere virtually abandoned rnd non-com- pliance became general. This situation continuer until the date of the Executive Order suspending al] coe'es. (3) See also Chater IV of "Agreements under Sections 4 (a) and 7 (b) of IT, I. R. A.", by Creston A. G-iblin, Administration Studies. 9345 D - ■ " DLLS in Srder III . ration anc 1 Conclusion I. Cri.in of Order An application, on behalf of the hospitals of the United States supported by public subscription or endowment and not bed for profit, Wf 'an exemption fr ny Code to all industry or trade members ■.". en dealing with such hospitals. As a result of such applicati . mmistrative Order X— 1 was signed .u;: S. Johnson, Administrator, upon the recommend iti n of A. D. Whiteside, Division Administrator. The Order .o essence of tl:e order is quoted as follows! "It is hereby ordered that those members of industries subject to cedes of Pair Competi- tion who sell or may sell supplies or materials to hospitals cf tie United States which are supported by public subscription or endowment, and not operat< r t, within the limita- tions hereinafter provided, be and they are hereby exempted from cc ce with ^revisions of such codes governing sales, provided, ever, that the exemption hereby granted shall be limited to an operative only in connection with such sales made "oy such members tc such 3tituti ans. " Further provision was made for it t: take effect in ten ays, unless otherwise ordered by t trator and tod r 3, 1934. III. 'orat-pr: ?n,l ZfiTcct doubt the mr ose of t "is order was to relieve chari- table '.als from sharing _n tlie burden of national recovery and thereby increase t..e usefulness of the funds at their disposal, how- ever, the order had scarcely been signed when objections to it came pouring ii • '."HA. These industr ss relying largely upon hospital tr- .-e operating under c des or the ERA le objection Se t No. 19 ~ 21 ~ on the grounds that they coal J. not sell below established prices and comply wit. t.'.e re nuir events of tie codes or PhA as to hours and wages, As a result of tics >3 tests, Admini: trative Order X-5-__ v;as issued February 3, 1934. 3y the terms of that order, the provisions of Administrative 1-rder X-4 were stayed for a period of thirty <3Q) days from date of X-5 to give considerate . :i to the objections made. The order reserved the right to tae Administrator tc suspend the effective date thereof by further :,rder. In the petition or brief 3/', dated February 26, 1934, and presented on behalf of the X-hay and Electro-Medical Products Groups of the Electrical Manufacturing Industry, a protest was made to the Staying Order of X-4 and the continuation cf Xr4. The following ex- cerpts from that document seem to give a picture of conditions during the period of X-5: "As soon as it became generally known that Order X-4, dated January 23, 1934, had been issued, a very marked decrease in business occurred in the X-Hay and Electro-Medical Groups, due to the fact, that the hor.-po.tals of this country demon led exemptions from the codes for their purchases; since the issuance of tie Staying Crder, all orders of customers hove been held in 'abeyance pending the final decision on this matter. This stagnation in business will continue, in our opinion, ao long as there is any delay in deciding whether tae original Order X-4 will be allowed to stand or will be permanently withdrawn. Based on the anticipation that Order X-4 will be allowed to remain in effect after March 5th, one hospital in Baltimore has already demanded of us a 15 /j discount on our products which it anticipates purchasing. ""tfe are no longer interested in a further stay of the original order and herewith submit factual data which we know will furnish suffi- cient information to warrant the }1BA to with- draw Order X-4 permanently, at least insofar as it relates to the X-Hay and Electromedi- cal products. 2/ See Exhibit lv T o. 20. 3/ This document is filed in folder marked "Division VI IT- Charitable Institutions - X-4 - S. R. Prince, Jr. " and ah the time of this writing is in the custody of Effie Lee Mocre, formerly Acting Executive Assistant, Division Till. 9845 t t ' tention >ack of the - ridable. It Lave ^ ittl ect on Ing foe . rniture, linens, and t large ty other items pure -- spitals each These latter named industries may I It :, ssiole to offer tie ho-s special discounts on purchases, because their total sales to hospitals -.re n r :t ..ore than -3 ' or ]0,j of the total, sales of such Lustries.' It is mor ortant t" note t in tlie case of the X-hay an' Ulectrc- Lledical Groups of the 21 ectri eel Hanufactur- ir. try, ■ les to hospitals is 60- of our business and closely allied are our sales to doctors of 36,j additional, thus accounting for all but rofit and, on the other .erf., re- ceives free ambulance service from the City of hev/ York, paid for by taxes.) - '.'.—I- makes no statements as to whether .ospitals include those li tals su ported by taxes. '.7e believe t at t ey are, net, the Order will soon have tc be ex- te.. LI include then.****** f 5n then .arises o.s to whether this rder wc not - irther ed to institutions, tsjc- supported and - 23 otherwise, vLic. . use X- . 1 ITLectro-Medical eru nent. 11 . T e respectfully call your attention to the fact er X-4 does not prevent purchasing by .lcspituls and t eir reselling to jthers. le know tliat cur groups can not maintain sales to •' ctors on published prices within the Code regulations and at the same time 3ll to hos- tals wit", a total disregard ?*s t sales of all existing codes. '.7e believe the doctors will naturally pirchase through hospitals or demand equal prices and that would "bring ictically all of cur "business under exemp- tion from cedes on sales." The document gees on to point out that to permit the application of X-4 to their industry would leave to individual manufacturers and vendors the right to determine whether any hospital was or was not within the scope of the order, that it would foster price-cutting and discrimination and other unfair trade practices. In response to the vigorous protests made, Administrative Order X-8 4/ was issued, March 5, 1934. Tils order made permanent the stay created by X-5 ins: far as it affected the X-Hay .and Slectro- Lledical Apparatus as covered by the Code for the Electrical Manu- facturing Industry, the Scientific Apparatus Industry and all other industries that established to the satisfaction of the Administrator tliat a substantial part of t— eir supplies or materials were sold to hospitals covered by X-4 and also satisfied the Administrator that justice required t" e relief granted "by Order X-8, This Order was si yned "cj hugh S. Johnson, Administrator for Industrial Pecovery, , upon the recommendation of A. D. .ihiteside, Division Administrator. Later it was established to the satisfaction of the Adminis- trator t—\t a substantial part of the supplies and materials :f the signalling Apparatus Subdivision of the 31ectrical Manufacturing In- dustry were sold to hospitals of tie United States supported by public subscription or endowment -and not operated for profit, and upon this finding Administrative Order X-24 5/ , issued April 21, 1934, stayed permanently the terms of X-4 in so far as it affected tli is industry. Administrative Order X-39 oj was issued May 23, 1934. This order modified X-4 so as to require members of the Bituminous Coal Industry, the Xiolesale Cool Industry and the detail S^l id Fuel Ins* dustry to fully comply wit • the requirements of Coal Codes in sell- 4/ See Exhibit STo. 21. 5/ Sec 3;i ibit ITo. 22. 6/ See SxLiibit "do. 23. 9045 in •j coa] U '• The order ' the issuance id been file", to t pr v ""-4 by members , and that it :iad been established to tie satis- r that justice required t:.e modification. is noticeab] e recitation clause i - "that a But part of t eir supplies or . e»1c are sold to such the Stayinj : I 1-8. rds show that industry members wh ".ad considerable with hospitals and were subject to a code cr a FRA nade considerable objection to X-4 in so far as fected tlieir indus- try, because t. c order, in ', r ibited them from deal: with liospitals. Such an effect rerv from i spitals refusing to with such members without a substantial reduction in prices. In cases wl.ere members - code refused to reduce prices to ■ )itals, sales were alm< st entirely curtailed, or.", ng a deter- mination ni t. o Adm n jtrator as t_ whether or net such Industry ■oeirs should comply with the provisions of their code. Diis condil dit about considerable confusion concerning the Order X-4 during the early months after Lts issuance, which was to a _;reat extent corrected by Administrative X- , X- - ~nd X- 30. IV . Conclusions . ;• records indicate that the de br u jht about a condition where the number of people rGquir:.n c! ri1 le hospitalization in whole or in part had greatly increased over pre— depression th.ies and that 1 e th< subscriptions and dona- tions to hospitals had reached a much lower level, thus placing upon t-.e shoulders of the institutions a burden which they were financially unable to carry. To make t e Pes; : t-ls Hircliase supplies at t" e increased 1 prices caused by the codes \ ?3A would but reduce their ability to carry the steadily increasing burden. The Administrative Order X-4 ..ad the effect :f distributing this burden among industry and because of this result those industries r production was utilized by hospitals were given re- lief from the order. 7ith these last-mentioned industries being excluded from t rovisiohs of X-4, that portion of the extra burden of t. e hospitals which was shifted to industry was spread is try members whose great roajority of sales were made in c-nf - to code regulations. J45 - 25 ~ ] IA \ I' I CAPP 1 !) 7; OBEERS I. Origin of Order II. abcecutive Order i T o. 5606-3? II. Procedure IV. Summary of Administration bj r Labor Department I . O rigin of Order T'n 3 codification of industry presented the -oroblem of the effect upon the continued smoloyment of persons handicapped by physical or mental defect or by reason of age or other infirmities. It can readily be seen t a minimum ve-^e requirement might result in the c'ischar-^e of those em- ployees who by reason of such disabilities ' did 'not meet the standard of efficiency reauired. This was soon recognized. Bulletin ho. 5, contains interpretation of the President's Zeennoloy- ment Agreement, Interpretation 'Jo. 21, Paragraph 3, being as follows: "Persons who are limited in their sarning power through physical- or mental defects, age or other infirmities may be employed on light duty below the minimum wage set by the President's Agreement, and f ^r longer hours than are therein authorized, .if the employer obtains from the State Labor commission a certificate authorizing the employment of such defectives in, such manner." As codes superseded the P?A the question was presented as to what &is/p$>sAtion should be nade of authorizations to employ handicap-oed work- ers issued to concerns when they were under PHA and numerous request for advice were received from state authorities designated to issue these cer- tificates. This gave rise to the issuance of Executive Order Ho. 6606-P. II . Executive Order :"o. 6SQG-? This Order was signed Pebruarj 7- 17, 1934, and recited that a question had arisen, or .night thereafter arise as to whether the minimum ^age and maximum hour -orovisions precluded those handicapped by uhysical or mental defect, age or other infirmity from their former opportunities of obtain- ing employment. The Order provided in -oart as follows: (*) "A person whose earning capacity is limited because of age, physical or mental handicap, or other deformity, may be employed on light work at a ■"age below the mini- mum established by a Code, if the employer obtains from the state authority designated by the United States De- partment of Labor a certificate authorizing such -oerson's (*) Executive Order "o, SS06-P - Exhibit Ko. 24 9345 - 36 - at at such wages and for such hours as shall be stated in the certificate. Such authority shall be by the instructions of the United States Depart- Labor in issuing certificates to such perons. ;h employer shall file monthly with the Code Authority a list of all such persons employed by hin, showing the -iid to, and the maximum hours of worl' for, such employees. " III. procedure The Adnini strati on of the e::e-v^tion relating to handicapped persons were in the hands of the United States Department of Labor. On Uoveriber 8, 19& , that Department issued Instructions to gaide State Authorities in the issuance of Certificates to Handicapped Workers; (*) etc., which prescribed the method of proeed.ure in such cases substantially as follows: (1) An application was required to be filed by the employer :1th the authorized state agency, to contain information concerning the employee, such as his occupation, earnings and the wages and schedule prouosed for hin as v-ell as the minimum wage and maximum hours applicable to the sane occupation under the code. Where the handicap was other than age, a doc- tor's: certificate, stating the exact- nature and degree of the disability was to be obtained and where the handicap was mental deficiency, a certi- ficate was required from a psychiatrist or a neurologist. The certificate was required to be from a physician holcing public office. Wherever mos- sible, the state authority was to make an investigation at the place of employment. (2) In determining whether an employee was to be classified as a. handicapped worker, it was necessary to distinguish between workers with infirmities and those whom the employer considered slow but who had no specific handicap. It was also necessary to distinguish workers who had physical or mental defects but whose earning power was not impared by such defects. The reduction in wages defended umon the extent of the handicap. When a code contained no provision relating to handicapped workers the ;e allowed was prescribed at not less than 75 per cent of the code mini- mum for that industry unless specifically approved, by the Department of Labor. However, a. differential of as low as 10 per cent was allowed where the handicap warranted such differential. Longer hours than those pre- scribed by the code for normal workers was not permitted, both because of the tendenc" to reduce the hour standards for all workers and. because the handicapped person, in general, was not physically able -to work longer hours than a normal person. (3) Unless specifically approved by the Labor Department^ a. certi- ficate to r- ork for less than the minimum wage was not permitted to be granted for more than 5 r;er cent of the working force in a given estab- lishment, erxerjt where a code specifically permitted the employnent of a (*) Instructions issued by Labor Department - Exhibit I T o. 25 9845 ~ 27 - larger percentage. However, one handicapped worker was allowed in each establishment, no matter how snail, when, in the judgment of the State Authority issuing certificates, the application was justified "by the facts of the case* (4) Execptions to the rales of the United States Department of La- bor that a handicapped person may not "be paid less than 75 tier cent of the minimum., or that not more than 5 per cent of the workers in any one plant should be so classified, was orovided for in unusual cases of hard- ship to the workers .upon the recommendation of the State Authority. (5) ilight watchmen were not permitted to work longer hours than prescribed by the- code- - — If -hours -were not limited, by. a cod.e, a certi- ficate was issued permitting employment for such hours as seemed to the issuing officer to be justified. (6) A person receiving workmen 1 s compensation on account of injury could be employed at less than the minimum on light work until he was able to resume his job orovided the employer reported the particulars of such light work to the State official designated to issue certificates and. to the State Supervisor of Vocational Rehabilitation, IV. Summary of Administration by Labor Department The Division of Labor Standards, United. States Department of Labor, issued, a report covering Handicapped Workers. (*) For more detailed, study this report will prove illuminating. In general it may be stated that the Labor Department was confronted, with the necessity of promulgat- ing a uniform policy with respect to the issuance of certificates to en" ploy handicapped workers. With the view of accomplishing uniformity of local administration, the state issuing officers met in Boston in September, 1934, which meeting was attended by officers from the leading industrial states. Among the problems considered was that of fixing an age of employees which should be considered old. for the purpose of the Executive Order, It was determined that disability from this cause varied to such an extent in individual cases and depended so much on the parti- cular -or!: that no arbitrary age limit could, be fixed. Another question was "hat percentage of the number of such workers should be allowed, a concern as compared to the total number ^f employees. This percentage as has been seen was limited to five per cent. A summary of applications for certificates while not complete show a total of 21,136. Formal applications were granted and. certificates issued in 17,203 cases. Applications were refused in 3,233 cases. Cer- tificates were issued in at least 261 different codes and. in 44 states and the District of Columbia. The greatest number of exemptions for handicapped workers was from the Cotton Garment Code, there being 6,735 certificates issued, from the minimum wage provision of this code or more than one third, the total number of certificates issued. The next high- est number was in the Canning Industry with 1,653 certificates. 23 codes accounted, for not less than 14,245 certificates or approximately 24 per (*) Report of Labor Department on Handicapped Workers - Exhibit ITo. 26 )845 - 28 - cent of the total issued. 276 certificates were revoked for violations of I rms ur. .ich they nere issued and 59 r , cancelled for various other reasons. ::y of the codes contained rrovisions relating to handicapped workers. A summarization of 475 codes prepared by the Research and plan- ning Division of NRA (*) shov:s 277 codes, 2 amendments and 9 supolerienta.ry cod*»s containing provisions for °x<^mptions of handicapped vorkers. Information on" this subject is also to "be found in "Policy on TTr.'-os the ".'inimum", TJork Katerials ITo. 45. (*) Report of Rpsearch and planning - Exhibit To. 27 9845 - 29 - G. HOMEi/OKKE'S I . Origin of Order II. Executive Order No. 6711-A III. Procedure under Order IV. Summary of Administm tion under Order I . Origin of Orde r A practice has prevailed among industrial concerns of offering employment to persons who for various reasons are confined to their homes. The type of work is of such nature that it is not necessary to be oerfcrmed in the factory but could be done in the homes. 7,'hile this offers an op- portunity for employment to many who would otherwise have no means of earn- ing a livelihood the practice on the v:nole has tended to create unfair com- oetitive conditions bee-use it is difficult for the competitor of the con- cern employing homeworkers to maintain fair standards of nours , wages and working conditions for their employees who work in the factories.. Previous to NRA some efforts had been made to control' this practice and reduce its evils to a minimum, a considerable number of codes prohibited homework. These code provisions, however, brought forth a number of complaints from individual workers who were confined to their homes because of age, infirm- ity or because their services were needed to care for an invalid. In March 1934, a consultation was held between the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of the- NEA wnich resulted in the setting up of a joint committee of NBA and the Department of Labor to study the problem. As a result of the committee's activities an executive order was recommended to the President wnich resulted in the issuance of Executive Order No . 6711-A. I I . Executive Order No. 571 IvA This Order was signed May 15, 193<=. It recited that the question had arisen or might thereafter arise as to -nether the abolition of home- work had precluded certain persons who were incapacitated for factory work from their former opportunity of obtaining employment and then provided that no cod^ in. which homework is orohibited theretofore or thereafter approved should be construed or applied as to violate the regulations there- inafter set forth. (*) These regulations provided in part as follows: . "1. A person could be permitted to engage in home- work at the same rate of wages paid for the same type of work performed in the factory or other regular Place of business if a certificate was obtained from the St^te authority cr otner officer designated- by the United States Department of Labor, such certificate ..._ was to be granted in accordance with ins-true- toons' issued" by" the -United: States-Department of Labor, Provided (*) Executive Order No. 6711-A - Exhibit No. 9845 - 30 - (a) Such person i as ouysjcally incapacitated for work in a factory or ether regular place of business and was free from any contagious disease; or (b) Such person was unable to le^ve home because hie or ner services were ab- solutely ess- ntial foi attendance on a nerson who was bedridden or an in- valid and botn such nersons wer^ free from any contagious iis^ se. "?.. *ny emoloyer engaging such & oerson should keen such certificate on file and file with the Co ^ Authority for the trade or industry or subdivi- sion thereof concerned the name and address of each worker so certificated. This order snould not apply to or --if feet Codes of Fpir Conroetition theretofore or thereafter approved for food or allies products trades, industries or suueiivisions taereof, wnich con- tained provisions nrchibiting the manufacture and/or t>rocessing of food products in homes." Ill . Procedure under Order Pursuant to the order, the U. S. Department of Labor on June 1, 1934, issued instructions relating te the certificates , (*) in which it was recited that the order allied to codes aonroved or to be thereafter aonroved, which contained a nrovision prohibiting uorae work in the industry or oart thereof, excenting the food or allied products industries , -nd had no effect unon codes which did not contain such a nrohibition, and furtner orovided substantially as follows: (a) A joint "noli cat ion for the certificate was to be made by the home worker and the envoloyer on a form furnished by the Department of Labor, through the State agency, stating the reasons for the worker's con- finement to nome , the rate of nay per unit of work, the time required to comnlete a unit, the number of units given out at one time, and the time allowed for comnletion of the work. Trie worker was required to certify that he would personally jerform the work, and the emoloyer was required to certify tnat he would nay th<=> same niece-work rate naid in the factory; tnat all material, etc., would be furnished, delivered, and returned by loycr and at his exnensc, and that no deductions would be made for snoilage or for imnerfc-ct work. (b) In adition to the. reasons giv^-n in 1 (a) and (b) of the order, the instructions authorized issuance of a certificate if the heme worker was accustomeo to this method of work before the code prohibition, pnd was too old to make an adjustment to factory routine. i t: :: (*) "Instructions for Issuance of Certificates Permitting Home Work in Snecial Cases," etc., Sxnibit No.' 29. 9845 - 31 - (c) To maintain the code prohibitions, the State Authority was to investigate the application to determine if the exemption was justified, and the standards set forth were to be strictly' applied. The issuing officer could require a medical certificate s'i^aaed by a puolic health onysician as to ohysical incapacity, and no able-bodied -oerson under fifty was to be considered too old to make the necessary adjustment to factory work. (d) The certificate coulH.be issued if ' justified , specifying the amount of work given to the emoloyee during a specified "oeriod, not to exceed that which could be comoleted .during code hours. (e) The certificate was to. he Issued in quadruplicate, one copy far tne worker, one for the employer, one for the code authority, and one for the file in the issuing office. (f) More stringent State laws or regulations affecting home- work were not to be superseded by the orovisions under which certificates were issued. . • • (g) TT o limitation of the number .of incapacitated workers to each employee was provided, but caution was to be exercised to prevent fraud if numerous applicants were received from qny one firm. (h) • A certificate could be revoked if (l) the reason for granting same ceased to exist; (?.) the work was performed by a oerson other than the employee named; (3) the employer gave out work in violation of author- ized conditions. IV . Summary of Administ ration under Order The Division of Labor Standards, Unite.d.,*it*:t.p.s Department of Labor, issued a report- covering' exemptions to nome-workers , reference to which is made for more detailed study of this subject. (*) A meeting of the state issuing officers was held in Boston, Massachusetts, in September 1934, to discuss the -oroblems which arose in connection with the administration of exemptions to home-work prohibitions. Among the proolems considered were cases of mothers confined to their home by the care of young children, nomeworkers who while not incapitated for factory work, lived at prohibitive distances from factories. It was de- cided that the Executive Order should not apply in such cases and that certificates should not therefore be issued. Reports were received from the State issuing officers on the ac- tion taken on applications for certificates. While not absolutely complete, figures have been assembled based on these reports. They show the follow- ing: Formal action was taken on 5,C65 applications. Of this number 2,608 certificates were issued and certificates were refused in 2,457 cases. (*) Report of Department of Labor on Homcwurkers, Exhibit No. 30. 9845 - 3. - The number of certificates issued is insignificant pp compared tc the total numDer of homeworkers formerly attached to tnese industries. Ap- plications .. ted in 23 States; ho ever the number issued did not reach substantial proportions t in a few states. following table b ruber of amplications ntod and refused for the ten industries in whicn 100 or more certif- icates wore issu Industry Number of certifi- "umber of aoplica- cates issued tions refused t's Neckwear 8C7 583 'Chant and custom tailoring.... 220 73 Infants' and cnildren's wear 192 131 Artificial flower and feather.... 160 151 Undergarment and Negligee 153 219 's garu°rs, suspenders, etc... lf±l 141 Pleating, stitching, and bannaz and nand embroidery 126 447 Toy and plaything 121 150 Tag 118 43 Cotton garment 116 100 4. See ">agc 7 of report, Exhibit No. 30. The greatest number of applications were from concerns located in the State of New York, being 5,065 applications , of which 2,508 were granted and 2,457 rejected. Next in rrder wpo that of P-nnsylvania, with 391 applications, 247 of which were granted and 14<± rejected. Tnen followed California with 270 applications , of which 220 were granted and 50 re- jected. (*) B. Information on this subject is also to be found in "Policy 'ages below the Minimum", Work Materials No. 45. (*) For further information on this subject see "K.R.A. and Industrial homework", by 0. 7/. Rosenzweig - N.R.A. Labor Studies. 9845 - 33 - H. A PPHSIITICa THAIilli.'G Ie Nature of Apprentice Training II. Origin of Order III. Executive Order 6750- C IV. Organization V. Alii list ration VI. Conclusion I • N ature of Arvorentice Training The tern "apprentice" is defined as "one vho is bound by indenture or "by legal agreement to serve another person for a certain time with a vie 1 .- to learn an art or trade in consideration of instruction therein and formerly usually of maintenance by the master." 1/ Hhile the above is no doubt an ancient definition, it is still generally speaking an adequate tern for present day urge. Thus, the distinction bet- -eon "apprentice" and "leprner" or "Deginner" becomes .manifest, the former usually applied to the youth and the training is fundamenta.lly rn education process, which the em- ployer is obligated to perform by the terns of the apr entice agree- ment. 2/ "Under apprentice training young men raid women are given broad and comprehensive training in all branches of skilled occupations. "It is of primary importance that everyone under- stand that apprentice training is fundamentally an edu- cational irocess* It is first and foremost training for a voc.tion. This urogram cannot and should not be re- garded merely as a. means for furnishing employment to young persons. "Apprentice training stands aut in sharp contrast to the employment of helpers, to the trade school course in which the student receives no experience in work under normal real conditions, and to the minute specialization of oper- tors." 3/ II. Origin of Order The need for. special training in trades and industries has long been recognized. In 1S17, a Federal Board for Vocational Education was established by .an act of Congress. Subsequently this work was placed 1/ Webster's New International Dictionary 2_/ Form of apprentice agreement issued by Federal Committee on Appren- tice Training, Exhibit lie. 31. 3/ Bulletin llo. 1, page 2 of Federal Committee on Apprentice Training - Exhibit I T o. 32. 9845 - under the Office oi , Interior Department rnd p new division of that o^. 'ice created named th< Division of Vocational Training. Hov- ever, dur Lepression the training of ne- ' workers foil to a -(bint where it Lcally negligible* "Skilled help was abundant and onroloyers found reduction of costs imperative; training programs inauger ated during prosperous tines were largely pbandoned." 4/ Although the National Industrial Recovery Act was approved June 15, 1933, no 1 >rovision was made for apprentice training and no actio ■ taken until February 1, Ii34, when Mr. Leon Henderson, Director, Researc '."' - Division, appointed a committee to investigate roblem rnd mp.de recommendations. Meanwhile, many codes had "been approved, most of which, failed to include any provision for ap rentice training rnd the few codes that had such provisions -ere generally inadequate for systematic training* On the other, hand the codes "ere blocking apprentice agreements since es under codes '•'ere higher I that usually paid apprentices at the beginning of their training ->criod. 5/ The membership of the Committee appointed by Mr. Henderson, con- sisted of si-teen authorities on the problem, representing the iiTLA, De- )ertment of Lr.bor, the Office of Education, employers, organized lr.bor and State Departments of Education. The Committee "as composed oJ following personnel: 6/ the Dr. A. J. Altemeyer, Chief, Labor Branch, C om Jl i anc e D i vi s i on Mrs. Clara "... eyer, Director, Industrial Division Children's Purer a Department c I :r Mr. 7. A. Calvin, Ass't. to Sec'y.-Treas. , John P. Fro--, Metal Trades Department, American Federation of Labor. Pr. Fr< lis Cushms t, Chief, Industrial Education Service 'ice of Education Mr. J. 7. Di Supt. lie Relations, metric Com;- Dr. Cr.rl Ruasbenbush, Technical Adviser, Labor Advisor/ 3oa_d IIRA Lir. Stanley I. Posner Economic Adviser, Research and Plr Division IIRA Mr. '..'- n -~ er F. Simon, Supervisor of Apprenticeship Industrial Commission of consin Dr. T7illia::: P. Stead, Associate Director U. S. Employment Service Mr. F. J. Trinder, Saco— Lowell Textile Machine Con )any. 4/ Page 1 of ErJiibit No. 32 5/ ] . - Excerpt from Report of July 5, 1935 by Federal Committee on .. Jrainin • xhibit Ko. 33 6/ Personnel of the Committee - page 2 of report on Apprentice Trainil Pro •• mder ] . . b' No. 3o-A. 93-15 - ^D - Mr. C. R. Dooleyi Manager, Dr. J. C. bright, rial Relations, Assist. U. 5. Commissioner for S© cony- Vacuum Oil Company Vocational Education Mrs* Betty Hatrley, Ex c , Sect., Mr. Guy G. Via, Lsory Uoard on Industrial Education, Netrport Ne'7S Shipbuilding 3oa. d of Education, Not; York City Company. Mr. John J. Seidol, Director, Vocational Education for Maryland! Mr. Seidel vras Executive Secretary of the Committee. The study of ti e Committee shorrsd: "1. That the terms ' beginner' , 'learner' and •apprentice 1 had "been used interchangeably in the codes. "2. That most so-called 'apprentice provisions' uere for short '"breaking in 1 periods of from one to nine months. provisions for genuine apprentice training." ±J III. Ex ecutive Order 6750- C As a result of this investigation and the recommendation of the Committee the President on June 27, 1934, issued 'Executive Order "o. S750-C. This Order provided that no Drovision in any Code or agreement trhich had theretofore been or rrould thereafter be approved should be so construed or applied as to violate the rales and regulations therein after promul- gated. These rales in substance r*ere: 1. A person •-•a permitted to be erne 1 oyer*, as an apprentice a.t less thru the minimum vrage or in excess of maximum hours of labor if a member of an industry should obtain from an Agency established by the Secre- tary of Labor a certificate remitting such employment in conformit}* - vrith a training program offered by such Agency, such employment to continue until the certifi- cate should be revoked. 7/ Page 2 - Excerpt of Report of July 5, 1935 - Eidiibit No. 33. See also summarization of a;o /rentices and learners -orovisions in codes by Research and Planning, Exhibit Ho. 33-B and 33- C. 9845 should net .. lerson of at 1 t 1€ • . I entered . I ' r it ten contrrct • L oyer or en rssociation of employers 'or at ] t 2000 hours of reason.- bly con- tinue-' loyraen "id his larticipation in roved t-ra Lnin rein ^-ovidc. . A Con. iitrtoc should be established by the. Secre- tary of L:bor to advise the Secret ry in the exercise of the powers therein conferred and to perform such other functions as the Secretary i jht dire ct. -his Committee should be composed of one or noro r. ntative;; of the Office of Education, I Eecov.ry Adninistrr- tion and the United States Do partment of Labor* The Order further aathori^ed the Secretary o ' Labor to prescribe further rules .-nx^ regulations and 1 take such other 3teps as he Might deem necessary to effectuate the Order. Orders rnnrovin,:; codes or agree- ments inconsistent with this Or^.er were modified accordingly, provided the ennlo ,r t;r elected to beco;.i< ct to the Or .or, The Order became effective July 15, 1934. 8/ IV. Organization Pursn.-nt to the authority cenf erred by the Executive Order, the Secretary of labor appointed the following members to coasitute the Federal Corimittee on A prentice Training: Mrs, Clare Ii« Beyer, Chairman, Assistant Director, Division 'of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor, representing the Department of Labor. Alternrte - Dr. William H. Stead, Associate Director, U. S. Employment Service. Er. Prank Cushman, Chief of Industrial Sduc tion Service, Division of Vocational Education, Office of Education, repre- senting; the Office of Education. Alternate - Er. R. V. Billington, A it, Industrial Educa- tion Service, Division Vocational Education, Office of ici ti n. Mr« Stanley I. Posner, Research end Planning Division, Recovery Administration, r nting the National Recove; A linistr tion. a1* te - Dr. Harry TTeiss, Assistant to the Executive Se ■ , al Recov r r Adnini strati on. 9/ On August 14, 1934, pursuant to the i uthoriaa.tion contained in the cutive Or .er, the Secretary of labor issued " lation iTo. 1" 8/ Executive C . 50-C - Exhibit Eo. 33-D 9/ Page 3 of the Apprentice Training Progrr i under the 1IRA Exhibit No. 33-.... 9345 - 37 - prescribing further rules and regulations for the carrying out of the rentice training pro ;rara. 10/ This Ad linistrative Order directed the Committee to >reparc and recommend to the Secretory basic standards for use in the training program* Such standards night be varied accord- ing to the occupation hut the troJLning neriod should not he less than 2000 hoars nor more than 10,000 hours of reasonable continuity, riot 1 ■ t 11-: tours per year should be devote/, to group ins tract ions in general and technical subjects under the direction of -yublic author- ities but the conbinea hours of ^-ork and instruction should not exceed 44 hours per week. The beginning rage nust not be less than 2£$ of the basic rate for journeymen prevailing in the occupation and locality .and the w--ge must be increased periodically during the life .of the contract, the ivera e wage for the entire a) ^rentice training oeribd being not less than 50 per cent of the b; sic w.- ye rate. The Committee was also directed to review the activities of all state agencies and report to the Secretary whether any such agency should bo designated. The Committee should also recommend to the Secretary such other regional, local, general or special agencies as might be necessary to supervise the training of ap 'rentices. The Committee should transmit to the Secretary nominations for membership in any such agencies made by (l) IT. II. A. ; (2) U. S. Employ- ment Service or employment service in the State where sach agency was created; (3) Strte Board of Vocational Training; (4) State Labor Depart- ment; (5) Organization of Employees in the particular state; and (6) Organization of Employers in the particular state. Every such agency should (l) adopt as the perraount guiding principle the education and training of apprentices; (2) adopt basic standards at least equal to those prescribed by the territory; (o) be authorized to issue certifi- cates remitting employment of apprentice; (4) prepare and execute a general Dlan for supervision of arorentice training which should include the aooraising and aamrovin : ' specific orograms, approving contracts of apprenticeship, registering apprentices, supervising the training, cancelling cor-.trr.ccs and issuin : diplomas. Pursuant to the above Administrative Order the work of organizing the strte committee was began. A series of regional meetings conducted by I.;r. TTilliam 1". Patterson, Executive Secretary of the Committee on Apprentice Training, was begun August 25, 1924, and continued until October 9, 1934. As a result o" th se meeting State Committees were organized and their am ointments officially made by the Secretary of Labor. The Federal Committee on Apprentice Training sent out to the State Committees written instructions released .under date of October 20, 1934, relating to the organization of the Strte Committees .and of Trade Advis- ory Committees and specifying the functions of both and also standards in the administration of the apprentice training program by the Strte Committee. 11/ Generally these instructions foil 0:7 Instructions No* I, issued by the Secretary of Labor previously referred to. The instruc- tions issued by the Committee were, however, more elaborate and specif ic« The State Committees, being agencies set up pursuant to the authorization contained in Instructions ITo„ I, the Instructions from the Federal 10/ General Regulation ITo. 1 - Exhibit ITo, 33-B 11/ Instructions issued b Federal Committee - see page 4 to S, inclu- sive, of Icemort of Committee - Exhibit b'o, 33-A. 9845 .. 38 - .': tion of ( groups i n • ;< iciea 0:1 the St- be Committees followed the reauir 3 t ions fro.n the Secre- tary of L bor, e:;c Lttee'a Indstructions nore specifi- cally . - : ' C 1 i ace Division, Instead ~- pad the .1 of Labor inst " ' an organization of employees in rticuL to. Tho other bodies re r the same rs in the Instructions fro- the Secretrr -, . ., St.- te Department of Labor, Strte 3oarc! for Vocation,- 1 1 Education, Eoploymcrnt S and Organiza- tion of En >loyers. The functions of tho St te Committee --ere to super- vise tho training 0* apprentices in accordance ••it 1 .: the standards r 1 )rov by the Secretrry of Labor inclu roval of - rentico contractsJ issuin ; certificates, re:ister : prentices, supervising 1 training of apprentices, cooper- tin,: - with educational authorities in the school program t cance"lling contracts rn issuin- diplomas* The instructions rlso d but did not require the establishment of Tr de Advisory Connittee for each trrde to be composed of enresenativos of en iloyees and ennloyers Such Committees \ould - ct in an advisory c- r city on such natters rs the determination of a uniform contract form, the trevailin^ average rate for journeymen, cooperation with school authorities, the selection of appren- tices, matters 0.' ;ricvence either of the aoprentice or the employer oth - bers« Bu Hay IS, 1935, forth- three strte committees and forty-one jlans had 'oeen e rproved by the Secretary of L-bor. Tho ground work of the nidations, dans and policies was couplet" . The Federal Committee on Apprentice frrinin : did not cease to functia upon tho invalidation "of the National Industrial Recovery ..ct. Executive Order 5750-C, rs "ell rs the agencies created thereunder, were extended by Exeuctive" Order 7075, issued June 15, 1935. Sanction was further given this Committee by Executive Order Ho. 7086, creating the National Youth Administration one of the objectives o-<" which was the employment ~nd 1 prentice training of the youths of the nation. 12/ National Youth Administr a has designated the Committee as the agency for carryin on the apprentice phase of its progrj a re nresentation of the ITationJ Youth Organization hr.s been appointed to the Federal Committee* In Decer. her, 1935, this Connittee consisted of "ollowing personnel: 13/ Mrs, Claro II. Beyer, (Chairman) Assistant Director, Division of Labor Standards, U« S. Department of Labor, Alternate - Dr. Uillian H. Stead, Associate Director, U. S, Employment Service. Dr. Frank Cushnan, Chief of Industrial Education Service, Division Vocotion Education, Office of Educatic , Alternate - Ilr. R. V. Gillington, Agent, Industrial icati n Service, Division Vocational Education, Office of Dducotioi. 12/ Pais 1» bulletin ilo. 2 of Federal Committee on Anorenticc 7rr;* n ; - Exhibit 33- F 1 3/ Pa 4, Bulletin No. 2 of Federal Connittee on Apprentice Trai Exhib i t 55-f . 9345 - 39 - Mr, C. P. Dooley, Manager of Industrial Hel? tions, Se cony- Vacuum Oil Com\airy, Inc. Mr. John P. Frey, President of tho Metal Trades Department, American Federation of Lr bor. It. Ll&ry H. S. Mayes, Director of Guidance rnd placement, Ii'-.ti.nal Tout}: Administr^ tic e. Dr. L. C. Marshall, Director, Division of Review, li.lA, Alternate - Dr. Harry Yfeiss, Chief, Code Authority Administration Unit, 1CIA. L'r. William I'. Patterson, Executive Secretary. VI. Administration Uhile tho organization had loon largely confLeted the actual number of aeprenticoshi m contracts effectee at the tine of invalidation of codos t7~s not great. A re-.ort of contracts classified by trades rnd industries and by states is contained in the Committees' Itenort. (Exhibit Ho. 33-A) This report shows thr.t on June 16, 1935, the number of am ^rentices under contract ws s 555; number of employees 140; number of occupation:; S3. The occupa.tio is containing f he largest number of apprentices '.'ere that of Plumber, in which there "ere 62 r. pnrentices; Machinist, containing 52; Fibre Weaver 42 ,and I :ol Maher 50. The states containing the largest number of apprentices in the order named :, ere Wisconsin, 220; Texas, 50 and Uichigan, 44. VI • Conclusion • The method of supervision > r the Federal Government of anx entice trainings differs in several respects from that ennlo^red in the regula- tion of industry through the hPA. The following '.Till be noted: 1. HBA functioned mrely as a federal a ;ency. The appren- tice training "orogram, homever, mroceeded more nearly upon state lines. The active administration of ao'orentice training is b -r the State Com- mittee subject to the General Sunervisicn of the Federal Committee. An officer of th State Government (a. representative of the State Labor Department) is a member of the State Committee. The State of Wisconsin has its 0*711 ajorentice training law, which is administered ~br a State Commission. In dealing with this situation, the Federal Committee simply designated this strte r 'ency as the State Committee. In fact, the ad- ministr tion of Federal Training has proceeded ue-on the idea of a coop- erative movement -nth the states rather than upon the assumption of exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Government. 2. The Administration of ITational Industrial Recovery Act TTas centralized largely in Washington, D. C. ; the Admini strati oh of a."T;rentice training -ts localized in the are -a of operation. This is closely releteo. to the jrevious observation. However, the first refers 9845 .- ••-, - to quest! ma of c nflict of F 1 ■ . Stetc Scv aties whereas thia ■ests the rel i 'ferencos in central iz itralized authority* Of course, even the apprentice t. rogran t, ps not en- tirely decentraliz rvision '7aa reserved in the Com- mittee. 3» In t. liniatr tion of apprentice traini:ig there has been Lderably leaa o* r Influence by industry than under I12A* One of the )ri:ie principles of 11KA eel f -government of indus- try; hone. 71 , organization by the individual industries regardless of local- ity and the election of code authorities. Uhile final action in .ost • r r erved in "_., actually the recommendation of the code authorities jrevailed unloaa such recommendations contravened some basic policy* For example, in ore ranting or denying exemptions the recommendations of the code authorities ere followed in probably not les.: thrn ninety'' (90; )cr cent of such orders. 14/ Industry is also re- presente.. in the administration of apprentice training, but no to the same extent* On the Federal Con:iitteo there is one representf tive of industry t four representatives of a:-c icies of the Fe< ral Government and one of organized labor. Proportionate re »rcsent, tion, on the State Com: Tit tee is about the same, there being three re-oresentatives of the National Government, one of the. St- te. Labor Department, one of organized labor and one of industry. I't will further be noted that the re-ore sen- t tion of industry and lrbor is equal. As a result of the above set-up, there is less power in any particular interest or class and stronger governmental control. However, it should be recognized that the organization end admin— istrati n of the Federal Apprentice Training program is not in all res- pects comparable to the work performc " ... The former deals with a single problem, the latter with a vast end complex variety of problems* Nevertheless, it is believed b stud/ of some of the features above re- ferred to aa well as e study of the administration of exemptions to home-worker and handicapped worker may develop vaTuable suggestions in preparation of any future federal legislation to regulate industry, should such future legislation be conaidered. 14a/ There is still an almost limitless, field for the training of employe* in industrial occupations. A large >ercenta :e of e::emrotions -'ere bas< uwon the ground thrt skilled workers were not available, eapecially ex- emption8 to >ernit employees to work in excess of the maxinum hours. Ex— e iptiona fro- - , maximum hour provisions constituted more than 50 per cent of the total exemptions. 15/ The. fact that e:r^lo3'-ers generally ••ere 14/ All exemptions -ere reviewed by the Hevie > Division - Several of the -liters of this History were in the Exemption Unit, 14a/ See also "State Recovery Legislation in Aid of Federal Recovery I i sir tion" Legal Studi 15/ For -authority for the above statements, see note 14. This Unit has also com uled • -digest of Orders granting and denying exemp- tions classified by grounds. 9945 ~ 41 willing to pay more thru the normal rate of iay for overtime ^'ould indie; sine rity. of their statements in this respect md th. t it '„?c.s not in fact >rofi table to hire the unennloyed labor that vr.s available* The situation existed in innumerrble instances '-'here in a conmunity in vhich ther<: ■ r.s large uneEnlojnment there uas also acute short- ■ if ; vailable skilled labor* This could be largely alleviated the extensive yro';rai of r^o prentice trrinin ;■ Informatio?i on this subject is-also to be found in "Policy on XI: ;es below the liinimuii", Work Ilatori Is IJo» 45. 9845 - 42 - I . S DDLIDBED WOliKSECIP S I. f Exempt i II. Administrative III. C nclusion I . O ripin -f Dxe r rpt : ltered '■• itituti dch provide em~ pi yment t ore- ns« Handicap ..• i r t. :c unable secure employment i >ecause L, mental or disabilities. Phere arc three ■ these institutions in the United States. It war s re institutions c uld not c • visions. On the >ther hand t.iere was considerable :>bjecti">n fr "cccause .f the competiti from such institutions. On February 18, 1934, ited "by Hugh S. John- son, t .. dnistrator f HHA, : the purpose f investigating the problem of sheltered w I aire recmi .eces- sar; .. I commission was made up >f the followin : Dr. Frederic "' award, University ;f Chica . " :ar N. I ivan, Nati n L Litati As s c i a : : i on , St. Paul , 1 [inne s ~ ta . Stanley ?. Davis, Charit I anizati n : ciety, City. II. Administrative Orders As a result of the efforts ~f the Commission, Administrative Or -- . dated March 3, 1334, was iss~~.ed which created a general eotemp- ti ;i ttf all sheltered workshops tip . 1 certain c;nditions« This Order defined sheltered wor s t be charitable institutions or activities there f c nducted n t for pr fit, "but for the p" viding re- munerative employment for physically, mentally a cially hanJ.ici \-':ers and r vided my sheltere< t be entitled to the l sign a pledge t the following effects 1. Not to employ mi] ' rixtcen pears of age sept such as arc the r instructi ;nal pur— ved by a cmittee sub- sequently ■ r vided for; 2« t in destructive price— cutting r r unfair meth tit ion; 3* Not to ■ retard poses f Title I trial Dec: very Act; '- ' sible the Da very Ac mini strati n; and 96 r. -. 43 - 5. To carry out so far as possible the intent and spirit of the National Incus trial Recovery Act. ■-> Administrative Drder No. X-28 which was signed May 11, 1934, i Lted the National Sheltered Workshop Committee and provided for tiie design and use of an \ oropriate insignia and specified the form of pledge to be* signed by National Sheltered Workshops and further required the said Committee to designate the several geographical regions oi the United States which were referred to in Administrative er To. X-2. The personnel of the Committee appointed -oncer this Order was: Mr. Oscar h T . Sullivan, President, National Rehabilitation Association, St. Paul, Minnesota. Mr. Oliver A* Friedman, Milwaukee Good Will Industries, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Mr. Peter J. Salmon, Secretary, Brooklyn Industrial Homo for the Blind, Brooklyn, New York Mr, Edward Eochhauser, President, Altro Workshops, The Bronx, New York City Mr, J hn I . Smith, Jr., Director, Institute for the Crippled and Disabled, New York City Rev, John O'G-rady, National Conference of Catholic Charities, Washington, D. C. Administrative Order No. X~59 was issued July 2, 1934, and pre- scribed rifles and regulations : p or the issuance of labels to sheltered workshops and the use tncreof. This Order was amended ~'oy Administrative Order ho. X— 81 which supplemented &J f the revisions of Crder No.X~59. Administrative Ore., r No. X~81 provided that the committee should issue labels bearing the NH A . insignia to sheltered workshops and collect the actual and reasonable cost thereof, to pass on the qualifications of applicants, and to determine whether or not they came within the scope of the sheltered workshop exemption, subject to the disapproval of the Administrator, and in general provided for the supervision of sheltered III. one I u s ion A complete history of Sheltered Workshops has been written by hiss Effie Lee Moore, Executive Assistant of the Public Agencies Division, and also Executive Secretary of the National Sheltered Workshop Committee, It is therefore unnecessary to treat here the administration of the com- mittee. Generally it may be stated, however, that the conflict between industry and sheltered workshops was largely eliminated and general work- ing conditions within the sheltered workshops were greatly improved. ^ See Exhibit No. 35 3 See Exhibit No. 3d See Exhibit No, 37 See also, "Sheltered Workshops under N.N. A.," by V, J. Clarke, and Le o . . Cyr , Achrd ni s t rat i o n S t uci. i e s J. Exr.i.3 : to .:i:'p- ~s I. Certificate of Compliance Required of li or II. in of Ex n to i era Government Contracts III. Administrative Order X-48 IV. Executive Order No. 6767 V. Inter i Executive 1 T 0. 6767 VI. Concluci I. Certificate of Compliance "cc ,...;. of Ei&ders r ho. 6646 1 datedllarch 14, 1934, it was pro- vided I 11 invitations m behalf of the United States Govern- ment to bidders shotd vide that no bid should be considered unless the bidders certified that he as complyin trie code zo which he v.'as subject or if the bi as not subject to a code that he would comply the President's Reemployment Agreement. It was further provide t all government contracts should coi I rovision \- c -~ qui r in . compliance but that the Administrator was authorized to make exceptions in specific cases. 1 1 . Origin, of Ex emp t ion to Zidders on Gover nr.ient Contract s Dne of the effects of code er n was that in numerous cases competing bids were identical in price though in most instances the Government v/as b; law required to contract \ i le lowest bi ler. This was claimed to' have resulted from hie price filing pro- visions of the codec and the further requirement of a certificate of compliance under Executive Order ho. 6646. Assuming that variations existed between prices filed by the members of a 2" , articular industry, it is not entirely clear how such price filing provisions resulted in identical bids although necessarily the bidders freedom of action was restricted to the extent that he could not bid below his own price list, A further study of the effect price i ilirg provisions , especially with respect to identical bids >duce valuable information. It has often been asserted t" such price filing provisions tended to create a uniform price structure. The submission of identical bids would seem to substantiate this view. Is opinion is further supported Government publication ("Regulations Governing lids Modified to Offer Government A en- cies Prices 15$ Below Published Quotations", t the subject matter of the Executive -and Administrative Or' er:- hereinafter referred to. of the publication applicable is the following: "h take care of cases in which the full 1 5 per cent variation m,-y cauc r to an Executive Orc.er ho. 66-' . -libit ho. 38 9845 industry's price structure, the order rovides t if complaint is filed, the Administrator for In ustrial Recovery nay after due investiga- tion and finding of the facts reduce the allow- able percentage, "but in no case to less than 5 III B A dministrative Order X- 48 On June 12, 1934, Administrative Order X-48 was issued, which exempted industry members who should thereafter Did on government con- tracts, from compliance with code provisions which "Drohibited any of the following practices , and such members, notwithstanding such pro- hibitions, could: (a) Quote prices and terns to such agencies as favor- able as those permitted to commercial buyers for like quantities; (b) Quote definite prices or terms, bot subject to adjustment relating to increased costs, for definite quantities and for definite periods not to excee-1 three months (unless code provided longer period); (c) Same as (b) except for indefinite quantities for definite periods not to exceed six months; (d) Quote prices and terms to apply to contracts to become effective not more than 60 days after the opening bid date, (e) Quote prices f.o.b. point of origin and/or destination. The order contained a proviso that it sho Id not "oermit deviation from or abandon- ment of code, open price on. cost protection provisions. I V . Executive Order ITo. 6767 Executive Order Ho. 3646 was modified 02 r Executive Order ho. 6767, approved June 29, 1934, which authorized any person submitting a bid to the government, at prices which, under an. approved code, should have been filed with the code authority prior to their quotation, to quote a price not more tha n 15 pe;r cent below his filed price, which action would be deemed an adequate compliance with the Code require- ments, if, after the bids were opened, each bidder who quoted below his filed price, immediately filed e copy of his bid ruth the code author- ity or designated agency. If complaint was made to the Administrator, and he found, after investigation, that the tolerance of 15 per cent resulted in destructive price cutting, he was authorized to issue an administrative order reducing the tolerance to an extent necessary to prevent price cutting, but in no event to a tolerance of less than 5 per cent. The Administrator was directed to cause a study to be made of the effects of the Order upon standards of fair competition in sales to public and private customers, a;.P to report within six months. V. Interpretation of Executive Order IT o . 6767 On July 14, 1934, Legal Memorandum ho. 49 was sent by Mr. Blackwell Smith to the Legal Staff, interpreting Executive Order ho. 6767, so far as the price tolerance exemption is concerned, substanti- ally as follows! :: 2 Administrative Order X-48, Exhibit do. 39 ^Executive Order ho. 6767, Exhibit ho. 40. 9845 - t€ - (a) T.. 9 of tl Drde: it of no exc er cent below filed irices .cies without code vi - Bultii -ices i Qyi coo t or below Lees, provide . it the '. ce filed, from which tolerance love , a Lee under the code provisions, ("b) Any legal interpretation of the clause which requin copy of each tolerance "bid to be filed with the Code Author- ity or agency, should, be based upon its wording, which vac believed not to justify an interpretation that filing such a copy constituted filing a revised r>rice ich then became available as such, to all purchasers, (c) If the Administrator found that the 15 er cent tolerance ":as resulting in destructive pried cutting, could reduce sa.e to prevent such result, but the tolerance reduction could not exceed 10 per cent, VI. Conclusion 1A Office lianual, Part III, Section 4600, stated that Executive Order Ho. 6767 "has not been very extensively Led, consequently the problems Lnvolved in Govern. tent Contracts te almost exclusively to do. 6646, on which the following sections i sed." Since Executive Order No. 67S7 operated without the necessity of further specific orders the NRA would in all probability have no offi- cial record of the extent to which the privilege conferred by this order was availed of. However, as members, bidding nelow their filed prices were required to submit such price quotations to code author- ities or other confidential agencies the code authorities should have tnis information. Further study from this sourc' .t be of vplue. 3 :ecutive Order . 6767, Exhibit No. 4C "uSep also "Relationship of N.R.A. to Government C mtracts and Contracts Involving t ie Use of G overnment Funds," t r J ■ 0. Hill, Adminis- tration Studies; Chapter V of "Agreements Under Section 4(a) and 7(b) of '. . . ._ .' : , ' 3, . riblin, Administration Studies. 9345 - 47 - assess] ett :::■: .sftioit I. Origin of Order II. The Order III. Ope ratio:, and Ef :1 IV. Conclusion I. Origin of Order Prior to Executive Order 17o, 6678, contributions to code a&minis- trationls expenses had been or. • voluntary basis, under a standard pro- vision which was contained in approved codes and provided that members •e to he entitled to participate in and share the lenefits of the activities of the Code Authority, and participate in the selection of the members thereof by assenting to and complying with Code require- ments anc sustaining their reasonable share of administration expense, same to he determined by the Code Authority, subject to review by the Administrator, on the basis of volume of business, or other equitable factors. Under such a provision contribution to the expenses could not be legally enforced. In memorandum from Laurence A. Enapp, Review Division Counsel, to Si Mi Jeffrey, dated June 5, i934 x ' as to the purposes and effect of Executive Order ho. 667G, arid Administrative Order X-36 , it was stated that the President issued the executive order to meet the vociferously expressed desires of man" industries to make failure to pay assessments for expenses of code administration a violation of the code. he Executive Order was approved on April 14., 1934." 1 1 . The Ordei- The essential part of the order was as follows: It was ordered "that the following clause or any appropriate modification thereof shall become effective as a part of any code of fair competi- tion approved under said Title (Title I of national Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933), upon application therefor (l) pursuant to the provisions oi' the Code relating to amend- ments thereto or (2) by one or .'-ore trade or industrial associations or groups truly repre- sentative of the trade or industry or subdivision thereof covered by the Code, if the Administrator for Industrial Recovery shall find that approval by him of such clauses is necessary in order to ef- fectuate the policy of Title I of said Act: "1. It being found necessary, in order to Exhibit ho. 41. Executive Order ho. 6678, Office Manual, Part V, V-C-29, Exhibit 42. 9345 support the administration of code a..", to of fair competition Code a effectuate the . Licy of the Act, the Code Authority ia au- ed, subject to the approval of the A - listrators " (a) To incur reasonable obligate as are nccerc: ■ roper for the fore- purposes an' to . eet such obligations out of funds which may be raised as hereinafter r - vided anc 1 which shall be held in trust for the :cc of the Code; "(b) To submit to the Administrator for his approval, subject to such notice and 'unity to be heard as he may deem necessary, (l) an itemized budget of its estimated expenses for tne foregoing purposes, and (2) an equitable basis upon which the funds necessary to support such budget shall be con- • tributed by the members of the Industry; "(c) After such budget, anc 5 basis of contri- bution have been approved by the Administrator, to determine and secure equitable contribution as above set forth by all such members of the in- dustry, and to that end, if necessary, to institute legal proceedings therefor in its o .e. "2 Only members of the Industry complying with the Code ad contributing to the expenses of its administration as provided in Section 1 hereof shall be entitled to participate in the selection of the members of the Code Authority or to receive the benefit of its voluntary activities or to make use of any emblem or indignia of the national Recovery Administration. " III. Operation and Eff ect On April 14, 1934, Administrative Order X-20 3 was issued, which ■provided for the collection of expenses of code administration, non- \ent of which constituted a violation of the code only if an item- ized budget had been approved, and the code authority certified th the member had been given notice of the approved basis of contribution, that non-payment within 30 days after such notice was a code violation, t the member had a right to irotest, bu1 failed to pay or file a protest. It was further provided that no members should be in violation of the code for failure to contribute to any industry other than t3 mbra.ced his principal line of business, but any code authority coul Office Memorandum 357, Exhibit Ho. 38. (***) Generally ! "The Code Making program of N.R.A. in Territories" by F. J. Duff icy, Administration Studies. "Chapter IV of "Agreements under Section 4(a) and 7(b) of H. I. R. A.", by C. A. G-iblin, Administration Studies. Alaska : - History of NRA Administration in the Territory of Alaska, by M. W. Stead. Puerto Pico : Report entitled "High Spots of HRA in Puerto Rico" by Boaz Long. See also the following code histories applicable solely to Puerto Rico: Baking, Motion Picture, and Banking oy Frederick Sartorious; Men's Clothing by TJalter M. Barrow; Cigar and Tobacco, and Survej- of Needle-work Homeworkers by J. P. S. Minnet; and. the Study of Needle-work in Puerto Rico by J. P. S. Minnet and Boaz Long. Hawaii: - The following histories and studies by Frederick Simpick: "A Survey of Labor Conditions in the Principal Industries of the Territory of Hawaii"; "High Spot Memorandum' 1 of' NRA in Hawaii; "History of Graphic Arts in Hawaii and Retail Trade in Hawaii. " 9845# OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION THE DIVISION OF REVIEW THE WORK OF THE DIVISION OF REVIEW Executive Order No. 7075, dated June 15, 1935, established the Division of Review of the National Recovery Administration. The pertinent part of the Executive Order reads thus: The Division of Review shall assemble, analyze, and report upon the statistical information and records of experience of the operations of the various trades and industries heretofore subject to codes of fair competition, shall study the ef- fects of such codes upon trade, industrial and labor conditions in general, and other related matters, shall make available for the protection and promotion of the public interest an adequate review of the effects of the Administration of Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the principles and policies put into effect thereunder, and shall otherwise aid the President in carrying out his functions under the said Title. I hereby appoint Leon C. Marshall, Director of the Division of Review. The study sections set up in the Division of Review covered these areas: industry studies, foreign trade studies, labor studies, trade practice studies, statistical studies, legal studies, administration studies, miscellaneous studies, and the writing of code his- tories. The materials which were produced by these sections are indicated below. Except for the Code Histories, all items mentioned below are scheduled to be in mimeo- graphed form by April 1, 1936. THE CODE HISTORIES The Code Histories are documented accounts of the formation and administration of the codes. They contain the definition of the industry and the principal products thereof; the classes of members in the industry; the history of code formation including an account of the sponsoring organizations, the conferences, negotiations and hearings which were held, and the activities in connection with obtaining approval of the code; the history of the ad- ministration of the code, covering the organization and operation of the code authority, the difficulties encountered in administration, the extent of compliance or non-compliance, and the general success or lack of success of the code; and an analysis of the operation of code provisions dealing with wages, hours, trade practices, and other provisions. These and other matters are canvassed not only in terms of the materials to be found in the files, but also in terms of the experiences of the deputies and others concerned with code formation and administration. The Code Histories, (including histories of certain NRA units or agencies) are not mimeographed. They are to be turned over to the Department of Commerce in typewritten form. All told, approximately eight hundred and fifty (850) histories will be completed. This number includes all of the approved codes and some of the unapproved codes. (In Work Mate- rials No^ 18, Con tents of Code Histories, will be found the outline which governed the preparation of Code Histories.) (In the case of all approved codes and also in the case of some codes not carried to final approval, there are in NRA files further materials on industries. Particularly worthy of mention are the Volumes I, II and III which constitute the material officially submitted to the President in support of the recommendation for approval of each code. These volumes 9768—1 . -11 - set forth the origination of the codes, the sponsoring group, the evidence advanced to sup- port the proposal, the report of the Division of Research and Planning on the industry, the recommendations of the various Advisory Boards, certain types of official correspondence, the transcript of the formal hearing, and other pertinent matter. There is also much offi- cial information relating to amendments, interpretations, exemptions, and other rulings. The materials mentioned in this paragraph were of course not a part of the work of the Division of Review. ) THE WORK MATERIALS SERIES In the work of the Division of Review a considerable number of studies and compilations of v ata (other than those noted below in the Evidence Studies Series and the Statistical Material Series) have been made. These are listed below, grouped according to the char- acter of the material. (In Work Materials No. Y7, Tentative Ou tlines and Sum m arie s of Studies in Process , the materials are fully described) . I ndustry Studies Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of Bituminous Coal Industry under Free Competition and Code Regulation, Ecnomic Survey of Electrical Manufacturing Industry, The Fertilizer Industry, The Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes Fishermen and Fishing Craft, Earnings of Foreign Trade under the National Industrial Recovery Act Part A - Competitive Position of the United States in International Trade 1927-29 through 1934. Part B - Section 3 (e) of NIRA and its administration. Part C - Imports and Importing under NRA Codes. Part D - Exports and Exporting under NRA Codes. Forest Products Industries, Foreign Trade Study of the Iron and Steel Industry, The Knitting Industries, The Leather and Shoe Industries, The Lumber and Timber Products Industry, Economic Problems of the Men's Clothing Industry, The Millinery Industry, The Motion Picture Industry, The Migration of Industry, The: The Shift of Twenty-Five Needle Trades From New York State, 1926 to 1934 National Labor Income by Months, 1929-35 Paper Industry, The Production, Prices, Employment and Payrolls in Industry, Agriculture and Railway Trans- portation, January 1923, to date Retail Trades Study, The Rubber Industry Study, The Textile Industry in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan Textile Yarns and Fabrics Tobacco Industry, The Wholesale Trades Study, The Women's Neckwear and Scarf Industry, Financial and Labor Data on 9768—2 - iii - Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the T rade P ractic e S tudi es Commodities, Information Concerning: A Study of NRA and Related Experiences in Control Distribution, Manufacturers' Control of: Trade Practice Provisions in Selected NRA Codes Distributive Relations in the Asbestos Industry Design Piracy: The Problem and Its Treatment Under NRA Codes Electrical Mfg. Industry: Price Filing Study Fertilizer Industry: Price Filing Study Geographical Price Relations Under Codes of Fair Competition, Control of Minimum Price Regulation Under Codes of Fair Competition Multiple Basing Point System in the Lime Industry: Operation of the Price Control in the Coffee Industry Price Filing Under NRA Codes Production Control in the Ice Industry Production Control, Case Studies in Resale Price Maintenance Legislation in the United States Retail Price Cutting, Restriction of, with special Emphasis on The Drug Industry. Trade Practice Rules of The Federal Trade Commission (1914-1936): A classification for comparision with Trade Practice Provisions of NRA Codes. Labo r Studies Cap and Cloth Hat Industry, Commission Report on Wage Differentials in Earnings in Selected Manufacturing Industries, by States, 1933-35 Employment, Payrolls, Hours, and Wages in 115 Selected Code Industries 1933-35 Fur Manufacturing, Commission Report on Wages and Hours in Hours and Wages in American Industry Labor Program Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, The Part A. Introduction Part B. Control of Hours and Reemployment Part C. Control of Wages Part D. Control of Other Conditions of Employment Part E. Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act Materials in the Field of Industrial Relations PRA Census of Employment, June, October, 1933 Puerto Rico Needlework, Homewor<.ers Survey Adminis trati ve Studies Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and Exceptions, Code Amendments, Con- ditional Orders of Approval Administrative Interpretations of NRA Codes Administrative Law and Procedure under the NIRA Agreements Under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) of the NIRA Approved Codes in Industry Groups, Classification of Basic Code, the — (Administrative Order X-61) Code Authorities and Their part in the Administration of the NIRA Part A. Introduction Part B. Nature, Composition and Organization of Code Authorities 9768—3 . - iV - Part C. Activities of the Code Authorities Part D. Code Authority Finances Part E. Summary and Evaluation Cjde Compliance Activities of the NRA Code Making Program of the NRA in the Territories, The Code Provisions and Related Subjects, Policy Statements Concerning Content of NIRA Administrative Legislation Part A. Executive and Administrative Orders Part B. Labor Provisions in the Codes Part C. Trade Practice Provisions in the Codes Part D. Administrative Provisions in the Codes Part E. Agreements under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) Part F. A Type Case: The Cotton Textile Code Labels Under NRA, A Study of Model Code and Model Provisions for Codes, Development of National Recovery Administration, The: A Review of its Organization and Activities NRA Insignia President's Reemployment Agreement, The President's Reemployment Agreement, Substitutions in Connection with the Prison Labor Problem under NRA and the Prison Compact, The Problems of Administration in the Overlapping of Code Definitions of Industries and Trades, Multiple Code Coverage, Classifying Individual Members of Industries and Trades Relationship of NRA to Government Contracts and Contracts Involving the Use of Government Funds Relationship of NRA with States and Municipalities Sheltsred Workshops Under NRA Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Program Legal Studies S Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees to Enforce Commerce Clause, Federal Regulation of the Employer-Employee Relationship Under the Delegation of Power, Certain Phases of the Principle of, with Reference to Federal Industrial Regulatory Legislation Enforcement, Extra-Judicial Methods of Federal Regulation through the Joint Employment of the Power of Taxation and the Spending Power Government Contract Provisions as a Means of Establishing Proper Economic Standards, Legal Memorandum on Possibility of Industrial Relations in Australia, Regulation of Intrastate Activities Which so Affect Interstate Commerce as to Bring them Under the Com- merce Clause, Cases on Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions Post Office and Post Road Power — Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Industrial Regula- tion? State Recovery Legislation in Aid of Federal Recovery Legislation History and Analysis Tariff Rates to Secure Proper Standards of Wages and Hours, the Possibility of Variation in Trade Practices and the Anti-Trust Laws Treaty Making Power of the United States War Power, Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Regulation of Child Labor? 9768—4. - V - THE EVIDENC E STUDI ES SERIES The Evidence Studies were originally undertaken to gather material for pending court cases. After the Schechter decision the project was continued in order to assemble data for use in connection with the studies of the Division of Review. The data are particularly concerned with the nature, size and operations of the industry; and with the relation of the industry to interstate commerce. The industries covered by the Evidence Studies account for more than one-half of the total number of workers under codes. The list of those studies follows: Automobile Manufacturing Industry Automotive Parts and Equipment Industry Baking Industry Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Industry Bottled Soft Drink Industry Builders' Supplies Industry Canning Industry Chemical Manufacturing Industry Cigar Manufacturing Industry Coat and Suit Industry Construction Industry Cotton Garment Industry Dress Manufacturing Industry Electrical Contracting Industry Electrical Manufacturing Industry Fabricated Metal Products Mfg. and Metal Fin- ishing and Metal Coating Industry Fishery Industry Furniture Manufacturing Industry General Contractors Industry Graphic Arts Industry Gray Iron Foundry Industry Hosiery Industry Infant's and Children's Wear Industry Iron and Steel Industry Leather Industry Lumber and Timber Products Industry Mason Contractors Industry Men's Clothing Industry Motion Picture Industry Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico Painting and Paperhanging Industry Photo Engraving Industry Plumbing Contracting Industry Retail Lumber Industry Retail Trade Industry Retail Tire and Battery Trade Industry Rubber Manufacturing Industry Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry Shipbuilding Industry Silk Textile Industry Structural Clay Products Industry Throwing Industry Trucking Industry Waste Materials Industry Wholesale and Retail Food Industry Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Indus- try Wool Textile Industry THE STATISTICAL MATERIALS SERIES This series is supplementary to the Evidence Studies Series. The reports include data on establishments, firms, employment, payrolls, wages, hours, production capacities, ship- ments, sales, consumption, stocks, prices, material costs, failures, exports and imports. They also include notes on the principal qualifications that should be observed in using the data, the technical methods employed, and the applicability of the material to the study of the industries concerned. The following numbers appear in the series: 9768—5. - VI - Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry Fertilizer Industry Business Furniture Funeral Supply Industry Candy Manufacturing Industry Glass Container Industry Carpet and Rug Industry Ice Manufacturing Industry Cement Industry Knitted Outerwear Industry Cleaning and Dyeing Trade Paint, Varnish, ana Lacquer, Mfg. Industry Coffee Industry Plumbing Fixtures Industry Copper and Brass Mill Products Industry Rayon and Synthetic Yarn Producing Industry Cotton Textile Industry Salt Producing Industry Electrical Manufacturing Industry THE COVERAGE The original, and approved, plan of the Division of Review contemplated resources suf- ficient (a) to prepare some 1200 histories of codes and NRA units or agencies, (b) to con- so] idate and index the NRA files containing some 40,000,000 pieces, (c) to engage in ex- tensive field work, (d) to secure much aid from established statistical agencies of govern- ment, (e) to assemble a considerable number of experts in various fields, (f) to conduct approximately 25% more studies than are listed above, and (g) to prepare a comprehensive summary report. Because of reductions made in personnel and in use of outside experts, limitation of access to field work and research agencies, and lack of jurisdiction over files, the pro- jected plan was necessarily curtailed. The most serious curtailments were the omission of the comprehensive summary report; the dropping of certain studies and the reduction in the coverage of other studies; and the abandonment of the consolidation and indexing of the files. Fortunately, there is reason to hope that the files may yet be carec for under other auspices. Notwithstanding these limitations, if the files are ultimately consolidated and in- dexed the exploration of the NRA materials will have been sufficient to make them accessible and highly useful. They constitute the largest and richest single body of information concerning the problems and operations of industry ever assembled in any nation. L. C. Marshall, Director, Division of Review. 9768—6. U. S- National r acq very ad- no.75