The Topeka Laundry Company v. The Court of Industrial Relations
Decision Date | 11 July 1925 |
Docket Number | 24,958,24,959 |
Parties | THE TOPEKA LAUNDRY COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al., Appellees. THE TOPEKA PACKING COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al., Appellees |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1925.
Appeals from Shawnee district court, division No. 2; GEORGE H. WHITCOMB, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Restricting Right of Contract--Minimum Wage Law for Women. To the extent that the industrial welfare statute of this state authorizes the promulgation of orders fixing a minimum wage for adult women, the statute is void, for the reason it contravenes the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 67 L.Ed. 785, 43 S.Ct. 394.
John S. Dean, Harry W. Colmery and James E. Smith, all of Topeka, for the appellants.
Randal C. Harvey, of Topeka, for the appellees.
OPINION
The actions in the district court were commenced to enjoin enforcement of welfare orders of the court of industrial relations, which fixed minimum wages for adult women employed in laundries and factories. The ground of the actions was that the orders, to the extent stated, and the statute authorizing them, were not within the police power of the state, and were violative of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. The district court sustained the orders, and plaintiffs appeal.
In 1915 the legislature passed an act, sections 1 and 2 of which read as follows:
To carry out the purposes of the act, an industrial welfare commission was provided for, to consist of the commissioner of labor and two other persons, one of whom should be a woman (§ 3). The commission was given authority, on its own initiative or on complaint, to investigate wages, hours and sanitary conditions affecting women, learners and apprentices, and minors, in any industry or occupation in the state, and to that end the commission was given authority to call for statements and examine pay rolls and other wage records of employers (§ 5). Employers were required to keep registers of all women, learners and apprentices, and minors, employed by them, in such form as the commission might prescribe (§ 6). In making investigations, the commission was authorized to hold public hearings, at which any employer, employee or interested person might appear and give testimony. Authority to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, compel the production of documents and make and report findings was conferred (§ 7). If after investigation the commission should be of opinion that in any occupation, wages, hours and conditions were prejudicial to the health or welfare of any substantial number of employees, and were inadequate to supply the necessary cost of living and maintain the worker in health, the commission was authorized to appoint a board composed of representatives of employers, employees and of the public (§ 8). The function of this board, if a wage board, was to determine the minimum wage, whether by time rate or piece rate, required in the case of a woman worker of ordinary ability to supply the necessary cost of living, and to report its determination to the commission (§ 9). On receipt of the report of the wage board, the commission was authorized to review it, to resubmit its recommendations to the same board or to a new board, or to approve the report in whole or in part. If any recommendation of the board were approved, the commission was required to give notice of a public meeting at which all persons interested might be heard. After such meeting, the commission was authorized to make an order putting the recommendations into effect. Notice to employers of the order was provided for, and they were required, under penal sanction, to post the order in their places of business, and to obey it (§ 10). The commission was authorized to issue licenses authorizing employment of certain classes of persons at a wage less than that fixed by the commission (§ 12). Any employer dissatisfied with an order affecting his business was authorized to bring suit to enjoin enforcement of it (§ 14). Any woman receiving less than the minimum wage was authorized to bring a civil action for the legal wage, notwithstanding her agreement to work for less, and to recover, besides wages, costs and attorney fees (§ 17).
Pursuant to the statute, an industrial welfare commission was appointed, which in the year 1920 instituted a general investigation of wages, hours and working conditions of women in this state. Cooperation of the women's bureau of the United States department of labor was secured in making the survey. The information obtained in the course of the investigation was compiled, and is contained in a report published in 1921, under the title "Women's Wages in Kansas," as bulletin No. 17 of the women's bureau of the United States department of labor.
At its session in 1921 the legislature abolished the industrial welfare commission and conferred the authority which it had possessed upon the court of industrial relations. Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the act read as follows:
Under an order of the court of industrial relations, the women's division made an investigation relating to the cost of living of wage-earning women in Kansas, the result of which was reported to the court in August, 1921, under the title "Cost of Living Survey of Wage-earning Women of the State of Kansas." Subsequently the court ordered hearings to be held in various cities of the state. At these hearings the two surveys were introduced in evidence, and employers were permitted to cross-examine and to introduce evidence in their own behalf. At the conclusion of the hearings and on April 11, 1922, the court of industrial relations made a preliminary finding that in certain occupations, including laundries and factories, the wages hours and conditions were prejudicial to the health and welfare of a substantial number of female employees, and the wages were inadequate to supply the necessary cost of living and maintain the workers in health. A public hearing was ordered, which, after due notice, was held on May 9, and on May 19, 1922, the orders in controversy were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quality Oil Co. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
...is whether the statute is embraced within the legislature's constitutional power to enact laws (Topeka Laundry Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 119 Kan. 12, 16, 237 P. 1041; State v. Wilson, 101 Kan. 789, 799, 168 P. 679, L.R.A.1918B, 374; Associated Dairies of Wichita v. Fletcher, 143......
-
Williams v. City of Wichita
...to weigh the beneficial results which may follow the adoption of any particular legislative policy (Topeka Laundry Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 119 Kan. 12, 237 P. 1041; Quality Oil Co. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 185 Kan. 488, 322 P.2d 731; State ex rel. Ferguson v. City of......
-
City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations Bd.
...grounds. See, e.g., Adkins v. Children's Hosp. (1923), 261 U.S. 525, 43 S.Ct. 394, 67 L.Ed. 785; Topeka Laundry Co. v. Court of Indus. Relations (1925), 119 Kan. 12, 237 P. 1041; People, ex rel. Tipaldo, v. Morehead (1936), 270 N.Y. 233, 200 N.E. 799.33 As was aptly stated by this court in ......
-
Morehead v. People of State of New York Tipaldo
...have construed it to prevent the fixing of wages for adult women. Topeka Laundry Co. v. Court of In- Page 618 dustrial Relations, 119 Kan. 12, 237 P. 1041; Stevenson v. St. Clair, 161 Minn. 444, 201 N.W. 629. See Folding Furniture Works v. Industrial Commission (D.C.) 300 F. 991; People v. ......