Pagel v. Trinity Hosp. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 13 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | 6846. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 174, Laws of N.D.1919 and Chapter 162, Laws of N.D.1935, regulations fixing minimum wages for women in any classification of employment may be made only upon the recommendations of a conference of representatives of employers, employees and the public and such regulations become effective upon an order of adoption of the recommendations, made after due notice and a public hearing thereon.
2. An order fixing minimum wages for women in public housekeeping establishments is, for the reasons stated in the opinion, not applicable to the wages of women employed in hospitals.
Halvor L. Halvorson, of Minot, for appellant.
Robert W. Palda, of Minot, for respondent.
Smith & Hovet, of Bismarck, on behalf of Murphy, Toner & Kilgore, John A. Alphason, all of Grand Forks, and C. L Young, of Bismarck, amici curiae.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the Trinity Hospital Association of Minot, North Dakota, to recover a balance she claims due her under the Minimum Wage Law of the State of North Dakota.
In her complaint she alleges that on March 22, 1937, she was hired by the defendant hospital as a public housekeeper and paid $17.50 per month for the first five weeks and thereafter the sum of $20 per month until the 22d day of June, 1940, and was paid in all $776.87.
That pursuant to law the minimum wage that the defendant should pay the plaintiff was $32.63 per month or a total of $1,272.57. This action is brought to recover the difference of $495.70.
The defendant interposed the following answer:
Pursuant to the issues thus framed the case came on for trial before Hon. John C. Lowe, District Judge, on June 16, 1941, without a jury. Defendant appeals from an adverse judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
There seems to be no material conflict in so far as the contract of employment is concerned. Plaintiff testified she was to receive $17.50 for the first five weeks and thereafter $20 per month and room and board.
Mrs. Hannah Meisel, who was acting for the hospital in employing plaintiff, testified that the salary was $17.50 for the first month and $20 thereafter, and also board, room and laundry. The evidence also shows that all employees got free hospitalization in case of sickness.
The plaintiff worked at the hospital a little over three years; she took her meals at the hospital but did not room there, nor did she avail herself of the privilege of having her laundry done there.
There is a direct conflict as to why the plaintiff did not room at the building leased by the hospital known as Phillips Terrace where the other employees roomed. The evidence shows that she would have received the amount she now claims if she had roomed there instead of at a private place.
Plaintiff testified she did not room there because there was not a room. She testified that Mrs. Meisel said she did not have a room.
Mrs. Meisel testified that when arrangements for employment were being made the plaintiff told her she had a son who was staying with her and therefore she could not room in the hospital. She testified that during the time plaintiff worked at the hospital there was always room available. Mrs. Meisel in answer to the question "What did you say and what did she say about the room?" said,
The trial court resolved this question in favor of the plaintiff and since there is a direct conflict in the evidence and the trial judge heard and saw the witnesses we will accept the findings of the District Court on this issue.
The Sixteenth Legislative Session in 1919 passed the Minimum Wage and Hour Law, c. 174, and provided for the administration thereof by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau. In 1935, under chapter 162 of the 1935 Session Laws of North Dakota, the administration of the Minimum Wage and Hour Law was transferred from the Workmen's Compensation Bureau to the Department of Agriculture and Labor.
The law as amended by chapter 162 of the Laws of 1935 empowers the Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor to ascertain and declare hours of employment, standards and conditions of labor, minimum wages and make investigations in regard to certain occupations in which women and minors are employed.
Under the powers granted Order No. 1 was issued and was in force during the period plaintiff was employed by the defendant. The specific provision plaintiff relies on as giving her a right to recover in this action is as follows:
Order No. 1 was signed by the commissioner and countersigned by the secretary. Subsequently a postscript was added as follows: "The Department interprets that 'Public Housekeeping Occupation' includes the work of waitresses in restaurants, hotel dining rooms, boarding houses, and all attendants employed at ice cream and light lunch stands and steam table or counter work in cafeterias and delicatessens where freshly cooked foods are served and the work of chambermaids in hotels and lodging houses and boarding houses and hospitals and the work of janitresses and car cleaners and of kitchen workers in hotels and restaurants and hospitals and elevator operators."
How, when or where this postscript was added does not appear either from the instrument itself or from any other evidence. There is nothing to show that the Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor amended or modified Order No. 1 or that any conference was called to consider classification of employees of a hospital.
This court in a recent case had...
To continue reading
Request your trial