Associated Indus. of Okla. v. Indus. Welfare Comm'n

• Decision Date: 21 March 1939
• Docket Number: Case Number: 28705
• Citation: Associated Indus. of Okla. v. Indus. Welfare Comm'n, 1939 OK 155, 90 P.2d 899, 185 Okla. 177 (Okla. 1939)
• Parties: ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF OKLAHOMA et al. v. INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1939 OK 155

90 P.2d 899

185 Okla. 177

ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF OKLAHOMA et al. v. INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION et al.

Case Number: 28705

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 21, 1939

Syllabus

¶0 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Validity Favored in Construction of Statutes.

If a legislative act is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which would render the act valid, while the other would subject it to grave doubts upon constitutional grounds, that construction should be adopted which renders the act valid and frees it from doubts on constitutional considerations.

2. MASTER AND SERVANT--POLICE POWER OF STATE--Validity of Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Laws.

Laws providing for the establishment of minimum wages and maximum hours of employment when, and to the extent, necessary for the protection of the health or morals of employees may be enacted under authority of the police power of the state.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Proper Exercise of Police Power as Question for Legislative Determination.

The question of whether a law is justified as a proper exercise of the police power is, in the first instance, one for legislative determination.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Delegation of Legislative Powers.

Power to determine the policy of the law is primarily legislative, and cannot be delegated, whereas the power to make rules of a subordinate character in order to carry out that policy and apply it to varying conditions, although partaking of a legislative character, is in its dominant aspect administrative and can be delegated.

5. SAME--Authority Conferred by Minimum Wage Law on Industrial Welfare Commission Held not to Constitute Unauthorized Delegation of Legislative Power.

Chapter 52, S. L. 1936-37, known as the "Minimum Wage Law," examined, and held that the authority therein conferred upon the Industrial Welfare Commission of Oklahoma does not constitute an unauthorized delegation of legislative authority.

6. STATUTES--Entire Act not Necessarily Invalidated by Unconstitutionality in Part.

The unconstitutionality of a portion of air act of the Legislature does not defeat or affect the validity of the remaining provisions unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted the valid provisions with the invalid provisions removed, if with the invalid provisions removed the rest of the act is fully operative as a law.

7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--DUE PROCESS OF LAW --Judicial Review of Administrative Orders Establishing Minimum Wages and Maximum Hours of Employment.

Due process of law requires an opportunity for judicial review of administrative orders establishing minimum wages and maximum hours of employment for the purpose of determining whether such orders are within the. reasonable limits of administrative discretion and are confiscatory or arbitrary in their application.

8. SAME--Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law Held not to Violate Due Process Clauses of Constitutions.

Chapter 52, S. L. 1936-37, examined, and held, when properly interpreted, not to violate the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions (14th Amendment, U. S. Constitution, and section 7, article 2, of the Oklahoma State Constitution).

9. STATUTES--Title of Act Held Insufficient to Authorize Minimum Wage Provision for Men and Minors.

The title of chapter 52, S. L. 1936-37, examined, and held not to authorize minimum wage provision for men and minors in the body of the act in view of section 57 of article 5 of the Oklahoma State Constitution, which requires that every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.

10. SAME--Title and Body of Act Held to Authorize Administrative Orders Prescribing Maximum Hours of Employment.

The title and body of the act (chapter 52, S. L. 1936-37) examined, and held sufficient to authorize the promulgation of administrative orders prescribing maximum hours of employment.

11. MASTER AND SERVANT--Constitutional Provision Authorizing Legislation to Protect Health and Safety of Employees in Certain Industries Held not to Prevent Similar Legislation for Other Employees.

The grant of power contained in section 5 of article 23 of the Oklahoma State Constitution, authorizing the passage of laws to protect the health and safety of employees in factories, mines, and railroads, does not constitute a limitation by implication on the legislative power and thus prevent the passage of the same character of laws relating to other industries In view of section 36 of article 5 of the Oklahoma State Constitution.

12. SAME--Legislation Contemplating Limitation of Hours of Labor for Men for Protection of Health Constitutional.

Legislation contemplating limitation of the hours of labor of men within proper limits and to the extent necessary for the protection of health does not transcend constitutional limitations.

13. SAME--Administrative Order Legislative in Character Void for Uncertainty.

An administrative order legislative in character or a portion thereof is void for uncertainty if it is so vague and indefinite that the courts are unable to determine with any degree of certainty what was intended thereby.

14. SAME--Scope of Protection Contemplated by Minimum Wage Legislation.

Minimum wage legislation does not contemplate the establishment of a wage scale for those who earn more than the minimum necessary for the preservation of health and morals.

Appeal front District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock, Judge.

Injunction by the Associated Industries of Oklahoma and others against the Industrial Welfare Commission and members thereof. From judgment granting relief less than sought, plaintiffs appeal; defendants presenting cross-appeal. Modified and affirmed.

Keaton, Wells & Johnston, Ames, Cochran, Monnet, Hayes & Ames, Garrett, Goodson & Rigsby, and Kleinschmidt & Johnson. for plaintiffs in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen.. and Fred Hanson and F. M. Dudley, Assts. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

DAVISON, J.

¶1 This cause is presented to us on appeal from the district court of Oklahoma county. The questions involved relate to the constitutionality of chapter 52, Session Laws 1936-37, known as the "Minimum Wage Law," and the validity of orders issued under the asserted authority thereof.

¶2 The Industrial Welfare Commission of Oklahoma, organized under the provisions of said act, promulgated nine obligatory orders relating principally to wages and hours of labor in certain designated industries.

¶3 After the promulgation of the orders, and on the 16th day of April, 1938, the plaintiffs In error, Associated Industries of Oklahoma and others, as plaintiffs, commenced this action in the trial court seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the orders and the provisions of the Minimum Wage Law on the theory that the law is unconstitutional and the orders void. Plaintiffs also sought a judicial review of the orders and of the proceedings in connection therewith.

¶4 Upon trial of the case the court below upheld the act in general, but declared the portion thereof invalid which purports to authorize the establishment of minimum wages for men and minors, and likewise declared those portions of the orders void which attempted to fix minimum wages for men. In addition, the provisions of the orders which purported to extend their application to territory contiguous to designated cities were declared void for uncertainty in meaning. We shall defer for the present discussion of the details of the orders.

¶5 The plaintiffs have appealed, appearing herein as plaintiffs in error, and the defendants, Industrial Welfare Commission and its members, present a cross-appeal attacking those portions of the decision adverse to them.

¶6 The plaintiffs in error urge that the act constitutes an unauthorized delegation of legislative power in violation of section 1, article 4, of the Oklahoma Constitution; that it and the orders promulgated thereunder violate the due process clause of both the Federal and State Constitutions (section 7, art. 2, Oklahoma Constitution, and the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution), and that those portions of the act authorizing the establishment of a minimum wage for men and minors are invalid by reason of the insufficiency of the title to meet the requirements of section 57, art. 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution.

¶7 It may be said in the beginning that, in determining the constitutionality of the act before us, we are not concerned with any economic question. The questions of whether the law is a good law or a bad law, whether it will prove beneficial or harmful, whether it will work benefit or whether the passage of the act was for the best interests of the state at large, is beyond the province of this court to rule upon. This was a matter solely within the power, scope, and wisdom of our legislative body. The Legislature has acted, and this court must confine itself solely to the determination of the constitutionality of said legislative act.

¶8 Viewed from a judicial standpoint, we have concluded that the act, although somewhat deficient in form, can and should, when properly interpreted, be declared a valid exercise of legislative power, and that it may be upheld with the exception of those portions of the act which provide for minimum wages for men and minors which is created by the failure of the title to forecast such provisions as are required by section 57, art. 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution.

¶9 In considering the constitutionality of the act, it should be remembered that if a legislative act is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which would render the act valid, while the other would subject it to grave doubts upon constitutional grounds. that construction should be adopted which renders the act valid and frees it from doubts on constitutional considerations. Ledegar v. Bockoven, 77 Okla. 58, 185 P. 1097; Town of Haskell et al. v. Edmond, 90 Okla. 44, 215 P. 629; Union Indemnity Co. v. Saling et al., 166 Okla. 133, ...