A variation in rates of pay as between the sexes is not prohibited where such variation is provided by contract between the employer and the recognized bargaining agent of the employees, or, in case there is no such bargaining agent, where such variation is provided by written agreement or contract between the employer and not less than five of his employees.

3. ADMINISTRATION. The Labor Commissioner shall have the power and it shall be his duty to enforce the provisions hereof.

4. COLLECTION OF UNPAID WAGES. An employer who violates the provisions of Section 2 of this Act shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid wages, and in an additional equal amount of liquidated damages. Action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. At the request of any employee paid less than the wage to which he is entitled under this Act, the Labor Commissioner may take an assignment of such wage claim in trust for the assigning employee and may bring any legal action necessary to collect such claim, and the liquidated damages above provided for. The Commissioner shall not be required to pay the entry fee, or other costs, in connection with such actions. The Commissioner shall have power to join various claimants against employer in one cause of action.

5. PENALTIES. Any employer who violates any provision hereof, or who discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has made a complaint to his employer, the Labor Commissioner, or any other person, or instituted, or caused to be instituted any proceedings under or related to this Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, shall be fined not more than Two Hundred Dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

6. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. Any action to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages based on violation of Section 2, of this Act must be commenced within one year of the accrual thereof and not afterward.

7. TAKES EFFECT. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 1947. (Approved June 12, 1947.)

LAWS OF MONTANA, 1919, CHAPTER 147

AN ACT Making it unlawful to employ women in any occupation within the State of Montana for less compensation, salary or wages than that paid to men for the same work, and providing a penalty for violation thereof.

Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Montana:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, State, county, municipal or school district, public or private corporation to employ any woman or women, in any occupation or calling within the State of Montana for salaries, wages, or compensation which are less than that paid to men for equivalent service or for the same amount or class of work, or labor in the same industry, school, establishment, office or place of any kind or description.

SEC. 2. Any person, firm, State, county, municipal or school district officers or public or private corporation violating any of the provisions of Section 1 of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars for each offense.

SEC. 3. All Acts and parts of Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

SEC. 4. This Act shall be in full force and effect from and after July 1, 1919. Approved March 7, 1919.

COMPILED LAWS MICHIGAN, 1929, MASON'S 1940 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT, SECTION 17115-556

SEC. 556. Discrimination as between sexes in payment of wages of males and females engaged in manufacture of any article. Any employer of labor in this State, employing both males and females in the manufacture or production of any article, who shall discriminate in any way in the payment of wages as between sexes or who shall pay any female engaged in the manufacture or production of any article of like value, workmanship and production a less wage, by time or piecework, than is being paid to males similarly employed in such manufacture,

production or in any employment formerly performed by males, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor: Provided, however, That no female shall be given any task, disproportionate to her strength, nor shall she be employed in any place detrimental to her morals, her health or her potential capacity for motherhood.

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, what do you have, Mr. Graham?

Mr. GRAHAM. I have a statement from Mrs. Elizabeth Sasuly in behalf of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, CIO.

Mr. McCONNELL. Without objection, it will be received. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. ELIZABETH SASULY, IN BEHALF OF THE FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO

The Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, CIO, representing 108,000 workers in the food-, tobacco-, and fiber-processing industries, of whom more than half are women, supports H. R. 4408. The experience of our union in these industries has long demonstrated the need for legislation guaranteeing equal pay for equal work.

The food- and tobacco-processing industries are notoriously low-wage industries. One of the reasons for this is the prevalence of discrimination against women workers, for they are also industries employing large numbers of women under a widespread system of unequal pay. The device of designating jobs as "women's jobs" is common. Such jobs automatically carry a lower rate than jobs designated as "men's jobs" even though the job in question may require equal or greater skill.

A startling example of wage discrimination based on sex was brought out in a study of wages in fruit and vegetable canneries in 1943 made by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. The study covered 700 canneries in 21 States employing over 75,000 workers at peak season. It revealed that almost three-fifths of all women employed earned less than 55 cents an hour, while only one-fourth of the men earned below this figure. Average occupational rates for women fell within the narrow range of 52 to 57 cents. Male workers, with the exception of class A maintenance men, had a range of 64 to 75 cents an hour. Thus, the lowest paid man received 7 cents more per hour than the highest paid woman. Only 13 percent of the women received 75 cents or over, while 35 percent of the men fell into this group.

Even more significantly, there were wide variations for the same job classification. Male filling-machine tenders averaged 67 cents an hour; women on the same job averaged 53 cents an hour. Male labelers received 67 cents an hour; female labelers received 57 cents an hour.

The facts brought out in this study are typical of the situation which prevails in other branches of the food-processing industry and in tobacco leaf processing and tobacco manufacturing.

There can be no question of the justice of the principle of equal pay for equal work. It is interesting to note that the Advisory Committee on Labor, which was appointed to make recommendations on occupation labor policy in Japan, stated in its final report that the general practice of paying lower wages to women than men for identical jobs was "one of the worst features of Japan's traditional wage structure." The committee asked for a statute establishing the principle

of equal pay. Legislation to achieve this end in the United States was introduced in the Congress in 1945. At extensive hearings held on the bill no evidence or testimony in opposition was presented. The question is now again before the Congress. Prompt enactment of H. R. 4408 would remove a basic injustice and would contribute to raising the wage level of millions of low-paid workers, both male and female, employed in industries where wage discrimination based on sex prevails.

Mr. GRAHAM. Also a statement from the Congress of Industrial Organizations in support of the equal-pay bill.

Mr. McCONNELL. Without objection, it will be received. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

On behalf of over 6,000,000 American workers affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the National CIO urges the Committee on Education and Labor to act favorably on H. R. 4273, which provides equal pay for equal work for women.

The cornerstone of our democracy is equality. Too long have we permitted that concept of equality to be abused when applied to half of our population-the women of our Nation. The semifeudal hang-over of expecting a woman to produce as much as a man but for less wages, is a Middle Ages practice that should have been outlawed years ago. If any group in society has reason to be given a privileged position, it is certainly our mothers and sisters who are working. But they are not asking for a privileged position. They simply want to be accepted as equals. The very least Congress can do, is to abolish the horrible practice of discrimination purely on the basis of sex.

The discrimination against women has had serious repercussions for the rest of society. It has been a major weapon in the hands of those few interested in undermining the living standards of our people.

The Fair Labor Standards

The

Precedents for congressional action are numerous. Act of 1938 provides for the fixing of minimum-wage rates irrespective of sex. Walsh-Healey Act of 1936 makes no distinction between men and women in its provisions covering conditions of employment in the production of supplies for Government contract. The National War Labor Board's famous General Order No. 16 authorized the raising of wages of women to those of men "for work of comparable quantity or quality on the same or similar operations." Before the war only two States had equal-pay legislation, but since then five others enacted such laws.

H. R. 4273 makes it an unfair practice for an employer "to discriminate in the payment of wages between the sexes-except where such payment is made pursuant to a seniority or merit increase system which does not discriminate on the basis of sex. It sets up the administration of enforcement machinery which, with proper funds, could carry out the purposes of the bill.

It is unfortunate that after the great contributions made by the women of America toward winning World War II, we must require a law to make discrimination against women illegal. Unfortunately, there are some employers who place the pursuit of the dollar above the principles of fair play and equality. The Congressmen who vote against this bill are actually giving their approval to such practices and who are penalizing those employers who are practicing our national ideals.

For the protection of the living standards of our women and the American people, for promoting industrial peace, and for carrying out of our basic principles, we ask you to make H. R. 4273 law.

(By order of the chairman, the following letter and statement are made part of the record.)

Hon. SAMUEL K. MCCONNELL, Jr.,

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
New York 22, N. Y., March 16, 1948.

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4 of the Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCCONNELL: Upon our request, you have been kind enough to afford us an opportunity to reply to certain false and irresponsible statements which were made about the General Electric Co. before your committee by a representative of the United Electrical Workers.

Yours very truly,

L. R. BOULWARE, Vice President.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. IN REPLY TO STATEMENTS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVE OF UNITED ELECTRICAL WORKERS AT COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON PROPOSED WOMEN'S EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1947

In the course of the hearings before your committee on certain bills (H. R. 4273 and H. R. 4408) proposing equal pay for equal work for women, certain irresponsible, inaccurate, and misleading statements were made by a representative of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, and repeated by Con-

gressmen Madden and MacKinnon, both of whom relied on the truth of the statements made by the United Electrical Workers' representative.

It is extremely regrettable that this incident has occurred and that it is necessary for the General Electric Co. to correct the false impressions created by such inaccurate and irresponsible testimony 1 before a congressional committee, reflecting unjustly upon the General Electric Co. This testimony has already misled at least some members of your committee and may also mislead not only the general public but our own employees.

Although the General Electric Co. has not previously offered any comments with respect to the legislation considered by your committee, it would seem appropriate, in view of the testimony given to the committee regarding alleged practices existing at the General Electric Co., to also make known our views in connection with this legislation. Accordingly, this statement will be divided into three parts:

(a) Correction of false or misleading statements made by a United Electrical Workers' representative.

(b) Statement of present General Electric practice with respect to pay for

women.

(c) Statement of General Electric's view on proposed legislation.

CORRECTION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS MADE BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED ELECTRICAL WORKERS

The legislative representative of the United Electrical Workers has attempted to create the erroneous impression (and, judging from the statements of Congressmen Madden and MacKinnon, has apparently succeeded) that the General Electric Co. has been and is practicing discrimination between men and women in the payment of wages for identical work, by testifying as to an alleged quotation 2 from what the representative calls a GE Erie works "employer's rating manual" and characterizing this manual as being (1) the General Electric employment rating manual, and (2) as governing present policy and practice. Both of these characterizations are completely false.

Subsequent to the testimony of this union representative, in the hearings before the committee on February 13, 1948, Representative Madden, purporting to refer to General Electric's employment manual, stated that such "workers' manual" provides that women "should receive two-thirds of the pay that men receive."

Mr. Madden's statement, although unwittingly so, is likewise completely false. Similarly Representative MacKinnon, by questions directed to the United Electrical Workers' representative, indicated his belief that "these discriminations" (alleged discriminations inferred by testimony of the United Electrical

1 In the recent hearings before the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor considering proposed amendments of the regulations exempting executive, administrative, and professional employees from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, similar inaccurate, misleading, and irresponsible statements were made by representatives of this union to which a public reply was made by the General Electric Co. A copy of this reply will be furnished upon request.

2 The quotation from the manual alleged to be the General Electric "employment manual," as contained in the written statement submitted by the union representative, is set forth in footnote 5. This quotation is itself misquoted so as to give it an entirely different meaning in the oral testimony of the union representative, as will be shown. (See footnotes 7, 8, and 9.)

3 Referring to the alleged GE "employment manual," a provision of which the UE representative had purportedly quoted in her oral testimony before the committee on the previous day. (See footnote 8.) Mr. Madden questioned a representative of the N. A. M. as follows, with respect to his statement that industry not only had inaugurated but generally was practicing the policy of equal pay for equal work: "Mr. MADDEN. Does the General Electric Co. belong to the National Association of Manufacturers? "Mr. KOHN. That is a question that I am not sure of, but I think they do.

"Mr. MADDEN. In their employment manual, in General Electric's employment manual, the employer's rating manual, it sets out that all jobs are to be classifiedd and work requirements set down, then rates were to be set for women workers equal to two-thirds the men's rate for each job. Now what do you have to say about that?

"Mr. KOHN. Well, in the first place I don't know whether that is the most that it is. Is it a plant contract at their office or at their factory? "Mr. MADDEN. It is the workers' manual, the employers rating manual. manual that women should receive two-thirds of the pay that men receive. progressing toward equal pay for equal work?

recent contract, but I assume

They set out in their rating Would you state that they are it may be that in the General Electric situation which you asked me about that actual job content, the real job content of the work done by men and women is not the same. That I cannot say.

"Mr. KOHN. *

*

"Mr. MADDEN. Well, in their rating manual they specifically state that in classified work women would receive but two-thirds the pay that men receive."

Workers' representative) actually existed between rates paid men and women doing the same work at the General Electric Co.5

Mr. MacKinnon's apparent belief is not justified by the facts.

Congressmen Madden and MacKinnon cannot be criticized for believing that their statements were accurate, since they were relying upon the accuracy of the testimony given in the previous day's hearing by the representative of the United Electrical Workers. It is unfortunate that these gentlemen were misled and it is a matter of great concern to the General Electric Co. that the record be corrected in order that your committee, and these gentlemen in particular, know the true facts.

The quotation supposedly contained "in General Electric's employment manual" first came to the attention of the executive department of the company in 1945 during negotiations for contract changes with the United Electrical Workers when the company and the union were unable to reach an agreement and the union took its complaint to the War Labor Board. During the proceedings, a union representative produced a cloth binder and read into the record a statement which appeared in this binder. The company has no “employment manual” and the document which was produced by the union contained out-dated and miscellaneous local information. The union inferred that this document was in use at the General Electric Erie plant, and the War Labor Board requested that a copy be produced.

Pursuant to this request of the War Labor Board, we endeavored to get a copy for the Board but no copies were available since the booklet was apparently issued locally in 1937 and the material contained therein had not been applicable for many years. Upon inquiry to our local manager at Erie we were informed that there had been in operation in the local plant at Erie in 1937 one of the several different systems of job evaluation which were then in general use within the company, but which have all long since been discarded as unsatisfactory in operation. As far as we can determine the provision to which reference was made at the War Labor Board hearing, and to which the union representative has made reference in this hearing, was part of a plan in effect at that time by which certain points were assigned to each factor (such as care, skill, or physical effort, for example) to be taken into consideration in evaluating a specific job. The quoted "instruction" may have referred to the evaluation of the factor of anticipated physical energy output. Rates were apparently set (under this discarded system) within a bracket of points, after totaling of all points assigned to each factor entering into the specific job. In any event, no such "instruction" has been in effect for many years. Further, as the company pointed out at the War Labor Board hearing, the point system of job evaluation which was apparently described in this material is not in use and has not been in use for many years.

The committee does not appear to have observed the discrepancies existing between the United Electrical Workers' representatives' prepared statement and her oral testimony regarding the alleged manual. In the written statement the past tense is used in referring to the manual, but in her oral testimony the union representative not only speaks of the manual in the present tense as if it were in present use, but actually misquotes and distorts the apparent meaning of

5 Mr. MacKinnon quoted the following section of the alleged GE manual, reading from the United Electrical Worke.s' representative's prepared statement:

"The value per point for day-work performance is to be set to establish day rates with a maximum permissible day rate of 5 percent above, while the value per point for incentive performance is to be 15-percent higher than for day work. For female operators, the value shall be two-thirds of the value for adult male workers."

Mr. MacKinnon then continued as follows:

"Mr. MACKINNON. That is a plain case of discrimination, is it not, as you would determine it under the equal-pay law? "Mrs. ROEMER. Yes.

"Mr. MACKINNON. That is an existing condition; is it not?"

Mrs. Roemer inferred by her answer that it was.

In the UE News dated February 21, 1948, this portion of the hearing is reported as follows (p. 2): "The Congressmen showed keen interest in GE and Westinghouse evaluation plans in which men's and women's jobs having the same rating are assigned different rates of pay. Reading a sentence from a company's manual which says, 'For female operators, the value shall be two-thirds of the value for adult male workers,' Congressmen MacKinnon of Minnesota exclaimed: "That is a plain case of discrimination.''

6 Since we have not been able to actually secure a copy of the alleged manual and to examine the quotation in its original context, we have been unable to definitely determine whether the alleged instruction was related to proper consideration of factors affecting job performance by women, such as the relative physical energy expended or required and other factors. It must be borne in mind, for example, that absenteeism among female employees, as shown by General Electric records, is more than twice the absenteeism of male employees.

7 See pars. 4 and 5 under the heading "General Electric and Westinghouse" in Mrs. Roemer's prepared statement before the committee on February 11, 1948.

8 See Mrs. Roemer's oral testimony of the same day following her written testimony.