Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

719
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable John C. Reed, Comniasioasr
Bureau of Labor Statlrtioa
Auatln, Texae
abors matter reads
rgsd for obtaining
no erent shall ex-
ee ($8) Dollars,.whlah
eotsd from the aqMoant only
ymeot haa been @$alnsd and ao-
he applioant;prDvlded, however,
or labor agents engaged exolu-
rovldine employment for skilled,
or al6rloal poeitlons may
oharge, with the written coneent of tke ap-
plloant, e f6e, not to exoeed thirty (SO)
per oentum of th6 flrat month's salary,
which may be collcoted fro5 the applioaat
only after employmenthas been obtained
and eaoegtsd by the applicant.*
WA good many or our smployaent agenoise are mak-
ing plao6m6nta whsre th6 baalo wage rate is set out as
a certain amount. tkwever, in some instances these
720
honorable John 0. Read, Co&s8loner, page g
employees are working a great many overtlao
hours, end oonssquently are paid at the rate
of tilueand a half fvr those oiertims hours,
thereby asking the to,tal saount of money re-
oslved for ths pay g&lod muoh greater than
ths basic wags rate<
‘Will you please advise me whothvr or
not the paxlmum amvunt of fee to be oharged by
the em&Goymantagsnsy should be based on the
basio 8alary or should be based on the total
amvunt of mvney rsoslved when the orertims 1s
oomputed.”
We think the legi818tursin establishingthe
“first mvnth*s salarIm as a arltorlon for oaloulatlng
the maxlmum fee to be ohvrged by the uploymsnt agenoy
used that term synvnymosly with -8g.8”. It has tre-
qusntlg been so oonstrued. See S8 Words end Pbrasos aa.
Laoklng Texas deolslons oonetrting this stat-
ute we turn to the hew York deolslon of Goodma v. MOM,
43 N. I. S. (Bd) S8l,whloh dealt with a rery similar
statute providing that the employmentagent’s fee should
not *exosed the amvunt of the first week’s wages or sal-
ary.* In overturning 8n edmlnistratireruling by the
Oommissiunetof Lloenses for the City of New York uhloh
limited the fes to wags8 paid undsr ths forty hour week
4xoluslv4 of overtlme, the oourt used the following
language whioh ws approve end think equally spplloable
to the terms or the Texas statutes
*The defsmlantls ruling is a logloal oon-
sequence of his interpretationof the statutory
work-week as a waek of forty hours, but, If his
lnttrpretatlonbe erroluous, hla ruling must
neo4ssarlly smount to a lowering of the oeillng
set by the statute. It 1s this aourt*s firm
conviction that his interpretation1s erroneous.
"There Is no state or fedsral law restriot-
ing the number of hours that one may work, There
Is no state or federal law restricting the num-
bar of hours that one may smploy anoth4r to work.
For apeoiti4dpurposes a standard work-week of
forty hours is provided in oertaln Industries
(Fair Labor Standards Avt, il.3. C. A. Title 29,
s4otlons 201 et seq.), but, ev@#nin oaseraootorsd
bj that sat, work may ba oontraoted for and psrformed
Hongruble John L'.R664, Comm.isa:onar~
~666 3
beyond the stander4 work-week at a wag6 rate
or tlms on4 one-h6lr per hour OS overtime.
- The statute under considerationher6 ha6 no
relation to a statute dsalgned to safeguard
a mlninum atendard of living and to prevent
unfair oompstitionin tnteratateoommefoo.
It6 only purpose 16 to pravent the overoharga
of a olaee of patrons whoas needs place them
et a 4la64rant6gs ln their 4aallnga with
those agsnoi46. met purpose is runy ao-
oompllah64 by tha SSttiil8of a OSlli~ in
plain an4 unequlvooellanguage. Tha 06lllng
is a the4 fee not to exoaed the first weal&
wagaa. 1W6g66* la tha prioe p6pidfor aervioea,
and inoludea not only mnney but even board,
104glng or olothea. Corpus Jurla, Vol. 67,
Wages, pagan 884, 286. *Gvertlme* la 4efln6d
to mean 'beyondthe regular, fir64 working
hours.' Yerguaon v. Port Huron k Barnla Far-
ry Co., D. C., 13 P. ad 489, 498. An ovar-
tin6 wage ia oonaequentlybut the portion of
wages whloh la pal4 for the aarrioea rondared
bayond those ragularlg fj~x64hours, an4 la
inolu464 in th6 all-oomprehenalvsterm *wagoa*.
Vlad it been the l4gialetira purpose to
aroluda overttma wages tram tha ooaputatlon
of ths agents' fees, lt ooul4 here been plain-
ly expraaeed In the 6tatut4 under oon6l4aration.
The allenoe on that aoore la not only patent
sri46nos of a aontrary intent, but potent reason
for not panpittingthe 4efon46nt to eubatltute
his judgment for that of the 16glalatura.W
W6 trust that we hers fully lnawere4 your ln-
quiry an4 assure you that it will ba our plaaaurr to 66rve
you at any tlae.
Y4ry truly yours,
ATTORNEY CTNERAL OF TEXAS
nn a