their testimony, I am clearly persuaded that the women in the press room were doing work substantially like that performed also by male employees, as defined by the Supreme Court. In many instances the work was identical, as when a woman would succeed a man at a particular machine on a change of shift, or would be succeeded by a man. The workman who relieved the other would go on producing the same kind of parts at the same required hourly quota. On occasion women would be required to teach a new man in the department how to do certain work. Defendant claims that the women were not required to do "heavy lifting" and were, in fact, told not to do it. The expression was never clearly defined. A stock pan full of harmonic balancer collars and weighing thirty-five pounds was put in evidence by the defendant, and this was considered not too heavy for a woman to lift. Some weights, unspecified, were too heavy for men to lift. The proofs show that the women did lifting and hauling and trucking, and that they had to do it in order to keep their machines supplied and to keep up their production. I find that the men and women on production helped each other in procuring fresh stock for their machines and in lifting heavy pans of finished parts and dumping them into "gons" or trucks. In 1936 male truckers were first provided for this department but they could not do all of that work. It is of course true that most jobs in the Olds factory were performed only by men, but in the paint shop and on inspection and in the small-press room, the kind of work done by these women was also done by men. It is strongly urged by defendant that the women had a fifteen-minute rest period morning and afternoon, which the men did not have. The testimony tending to support this claim is not persuasive. It is, in any event, not material. The women had to turn out the same quantity and quality of work as the men similarly employed. If they did that, the women would be entitled to equal pay. Counsel for defendant suggests in his brief that when a woman was taking the alleged rest period it was necessary for a man to leave his machine and take her place until she returned. I am unable to find that this suggestion has any sup port in the record. In the women's toilet it appears that there was a hot plate, a sanitary cot, some old rocking chairs, and perhaps a mirror. It is urged by the defendant that this tended to distinguish the work of the women from that of the man but I am not impressed that the operation of this statute is to be avoided by any difference in the appointment of toilets. It is claimed by the defendant that there was a difference between men and women in the matter of transfers from one department to another. If so, it does not go to the issue of similarity of work. But the women were also transferred. Many of them had been transferred from the sewing room to the sheet metal department. Certain of them were transferred from the day shift to the night shift to instruct new male employees and later they were transferred back to the day shift. In September of 1937, all of the women were transferred to the newly created "Women's Division." This division was established after an investigation by the Department of Labor and Industry and the complaint that section 556 was being violated. All of the work done therein had been previously performed by men, and many of the women merely carried on with work that they had performed elsewhere. After a careful consideration of the witnesses and the testimony, I am convinced that these women in the several departments did perform work which was similar to, and substantially like work performed by men as to character, quality and quantity, as contemplated by the language of the statute. Did the women receive less wages? Defendant claims that this is speculative, but I cannot agree. The pay-roll records of the defendant corporation, consisting of time clock cards, ledger entries, cancelled pay checks and annual earnings statements, are in evidence so far as they relate to plaintiff and her assignors, and also those of a number of the male employees and this documentary evidence shows beyond any question that the women were discriminated against in the payment of wages and that throughout the years there was a constant and substantial difference in the hourly rate of pay in favor of the men. True it is that men did vary slightly among themselves, but all of the women in each department steadily received less pay than did men performing similar work whose experience and length of service was at all comparable to theirs. Thus a new man would start at an hourly rate similar to that of the women who had been there for many years, but within a few months it is found that he would be getting considerably more than the women, and ultimately would attain a parity with other men. Thus, while still being taught, perhaps by_women, he might be receiving higher wages than the women. In the spring of 1937 the wage scale in the Olds factory had been so stabilized that all of the women in the press room were receiving 75¢ per hour. Men 71386-48- 9 doing similar work were receiving 97¢ per hour, and this differential of 21¢ per hour might well be considered upon the record as representing the average difference in pay between men and women over the entire period. The record shows that the men always got pay raises whenever the women did, but that the women were sometimes left out when wages were being raised. Thus in 1937 all of the men in the sheet metal department received a substantial raise, but none of the women were raised. The record is persuasive that the women were being exploited in the sense that that word is used by our court in its decision on the constitutionality of this law in that they received less pay than the men for the same work. The discrimination in wages was in my opinion on the basis of sex only. It follows that plaintiff is entitled to receive as damages the differential in wages paid. Defendant claims that the amount of damage rests on speculation and therefore cannot be estimated, and that for that reason, if for no other, plaintiff suit must fail. With defendant's position I cannot agree, as I do not find this to be the rule of law, once the fact of damage has been established by competent evidence, but the point does not concern us, since the amount of damage in this case is capable of reasonably definite ascertainment or determination. By an amendment to its answer, defendant limited the period covered by the suit to the six years immediately preceding commencement of the action. The payroll records of the corporation show the number of hours worked by each woman during this time and the rate of pay, and they also reveal the rate of pay of some of the men of each department who did similar work. Some discretion is of course necessarily involved in the selection of a proper hourly rate for men, to be used as the basis of comparison. In the press room the pay of sweepers, die setters, truckers and so forth, is ruled out, since those men were not on production. Also a man's pay is not properly to be considered until he has worked at the job sufficiently long to entitle him to comparison on the basis of efficiency and length of service. A complication is added by the fact that up to May, 1934, a bonus system was in vogue in the paint shop and sheet metal department. The percentum of bonus paid each pay day in addition to the regular wages varied according to the production achieved by that particular department as a unit. The bonus system increased the difference in pay between men and women. A thirty percent bonus applied to an hourly rate of forty-five cents, for instance, produces a larger sum than if the hourly rate is thirty cents. Also during 1936 and 1937 it was the custom to pay time and a half for overtime work, and this, likewise, had the result of increasing the difference in pay between men and women. Some of the time-clock cards of the women, especially at the beginning of the sixyear period, are missing. In the paint shop, until February, 1934, there were no men doing work similar to the women there employed, and that period is not to be considered. Some of the women did not continue work throughout the sixyear period, although they had worked for years prior thereto at less pay than men received. At least once or twice a Christmas bonus was paid, the men receiving a higher amount, but this also has not been taken into consideration here. While the situation here presented is fraught with some difficulty, and does not lend itself readily or easily to determination, nevertheless a denial of relief cannot be predicated upon such a contention, the result of which would defeat recovery, for as a matter of fact it does lend itself to arithmetical computation to a definite degree of certainty. Considering only the documentary evidence in the case, consisting of defendant's payroll records, and limiting the period covered to the six-year period preceding commencement of suit, I find that the plaintiff is presently entitled to recover from the defendant the sum of $55,690.00, which amount, for the reasons hereinbefore suggested, is without question substantially less than the actual differential or loss. Judgment will enter for the plaintiff in said amount, the same to bear interest at five percent until paid. MAY 29, 1942. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Fisher. CHARLES H. HAYDEN, Circuit Judge. Mr. FISHER. Mr. Secretary, do you know approximately how many people would be affected by this bill? Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. There was a letter written to me by Mr. Graham from the committee. It contains three questions. I just got the report this morning on the answers to the questions. They involve this situation to which you referred. I will read it, or we can put it in the record, whichever you prefer. Mr. FISHER. Do you have those particular figures there? Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. No. If I had another day I would try to get some further figures on this thing, because I am not satisfied with this answer. However, if you want me to read this in, I should be glad to do so. Mr. FISHER. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it be included at this point, if it is pertinent. Suppose you make it complete and then insert it in the record. Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. Yes, sir, because I am not satisfied with this. Mr. FISHER. I was wondering in what industries this alleged discrimination is most prevalent at this time? Do you have information about that? Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. Well, this document says that in General Motors they have problems involving 100,000 women. If the committee wishes, we can give them time to furnish a more complete list of cases involving equal pay for women. The answers to the questions in this letter are all about the same. They cite only a few instances. Mr. FISHER. You referred to 100,000 women in General Motors. Do you mean by that there are 100,000 women in General Motors who are now being discriminated against with respect to the amount of wages they are being paid? Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. I haven't the slightest idea. I received this letter from Mr. Graham. I referred it within the Department for an answer. I would like some more time to get a complete answer to it. I am not satisfied with this answer. I believe we can give you some much more satisfactory figures if we are given a couple of days. Mr. FISHER. Don't you think it is important for the committee to go into that to find out where and to what extent this alleged discrimination occurs? Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. Yes; I do. Mr. FISHER. That is all. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Secretary, how do we know there is widespread discrimination if we haven't any figures on it? What is it, a guess? I am just curious. Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. I think they can get the figures. Mr. McCONNELL. You feel very certain there is widespread discrimination, but you do not have any figures to prove it? Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. Well, anybody knows that through the years women have worked on jobs and there has been a discrimination as to the wages they receive. Mr. McCONNELL. I have heard so, but I have never seen any figures at any time to prove it. Like you say, everybody knows, it is general talk, but I have never seen any figures. Do you know if figures are available? Mr. SCHWELLENBACH. It seems to me they must be available, but I would like to have a couple of days to present them. Mr. McCONNELL. I should think there would be. Since these organizations have been sponsoring this for a long while you would think they would have compiled some figures by this time. Perhaps they will turn up in the hearings this week; I hope so. (Mr. Schwellenbach's answers to the questions submitted by Mr. Graham are as follows:) FEBRUARY, 13, 1948. REPLY TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN LETTER FROM Mr. John O. GRAHAM, OF THE -HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1948, CONCERNING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF WAGE RATE DIFFERENTIALS Question 1.-To what extent does a differential actually exist between the hourly wage paid to men and to women for doing the same job? Answer. No complete statistical reply for the whole United States can be given to this question. To collect such data, even for one specific pay roll period would be an impossible task in terms of the Department's staff at any time in the past, or at the present. In fact, the Department has never geared its past wage surveys to this particular problem, but to the more generalized problems of hourly earnings for important occupations in selected industries. The results of such surveys as have been made do yield, however, some information that shows the comparative earnings of men and women doing comparable work. The occupational earnings figures are based on a representative sample of establishments and include not only earnings of workers paid time rates but also those paid on an incentive basis. For equal pay purposes incentive paid workers would probably raise fewer questions, because the individual's production would determine his earnings. The major problems in such situations would be to determine (1) whether the base rate was set without sex discrimination, (2) whether women were given the same opportunity as men to work under the most advantageous system. The Women's Bureau has found that in some plants women were excluded from the benefits of bonus systems that were applicable to men, and such cases would, of course, constitute discrimination. The extent to which a differential actually exists between the hourly wage paid to men and women for doing the same job cannot, on the basis of available data, be presented on any mass scale. It can only be illustrated, and that will be done in my answer to Question 2. An indication of the range and seriousness of sex differentials during the recent war is contained in the experience of the National War Labor Board. The Board decided a considerable number of dispute cases in which this matter was involved, and the details of many of those cases are given in the Board's Research Report No. 32 which has been entered in the record at another point. The National War Labor Board regarded the existence of sex differentials as serious enough to authorize employers generally to bring women's rates up to men's without prior application to the Board. This was done through its Order No. 16 issued November 24, 1942. The volume of such voluntary adjustments became too great for the Board to keep tabulation on after the first year of operations under General Order No. 16. The reporting requirement was abolished on January 3, 1944. The records of the Board show that up to that time 2,250 firms had made voluntary adjustments of women's rates, and that about 60,000 women were affected. Since the peak of women's employment during the war had not yet been reached at the time Board records ceased to be kept, it is reasonable to assume that voluntary adjustments continued to be made in great numbers, indicating that actual practice prior to that time was to pay women less than men for comparable work. Otherwise such adjustments would not have been necessary. Further evidence of the prevalence of sex differentials in industry comes to light through the dispute cases which came before the Board. No separate tally was kept of complaint cases that involved equal pay, but there was a fairly steady flow of them, as indicated by the Board's Research study No. 32, mentioned above. Some of the outstandingly important ones were: General Motors Corporation, which involved 100,000 women; Norma Hoffman Bearings Corporation, and Brown and Sharpe Manufacturing Company. Report No. 32, Appendices C, D, and E, lists a number of cases in addition to those discussed in detail in the main body of the Report. An important case that was tried in the Michigan courts under the Michigan Equal Pay Law involved the General Motors Corporation-Oldsmoible Plant. In that case the Court awarded $55,000 in back pay to the 28 or 29 women involved who had been paid a lower rate than men for comparable work. This case is an illustration of how important, financially, the existence of unequal rates can be to women workers. Question 2.-If a differential does exist, what is the magnitude of that differential for the same job: (a) Cents per hour; (b) in percentage? Answer. As I pointed out, in answer to Question 1, no general statistics as to the extent or magnitude of differentials exist. Illustrations of differentials can be given however, from the industry data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For example, in a machinery study made in 1945 it was found that in all but 1 of the 27 classifications studied men had higher straight-time hourly earnings, the differentials ranging on a national basis from 4 cents to 26 cents. In 11 occupations the differentials were 10 cents or more. In five occupations paid on a time basis only, the women's earnings ranged from 94 to 125 percent of a base of 100, while the men's rates for the same jobs ranged from 105 to 130. In the job where men's and women's earnings were most nearly the same, the women's earnings were 4 percent less than the men's; the other differences were 9, 18, 18% and 20 percent. I attach a copy of the complete study. In a study made in January 1947 of the radio, radio equipment, and phonograph industry, differentials ranging from 5 to 23 cents and from 5 to 19 percent appear in a group of 11 occupations in which substantial numbers of men and women were employed. The lower earnings in every case were those of the women. The following table indicates these differentials: In a study of the paint and varnish industry where hourly earnings for men and women working as labelers and packers were obtained for July 1946 and August 1947, continuing differentials appear even though earnings themselves increased. The comparative earnings in this occupation were: Another illustrative study is the one of office workers published by the Women's Bureau in 1940 covering five major cities: Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Kansas City, Houston, and Richmond. The study covered 1,189 firms, employing 82,450 workers, of which 45,414 were women. Comparisons of men's and women's monthly salary rates for the same occupations in each industry group show that |