NUMBER OF INJUNCTIONS SOUGHT DURING FIRST 9 MONTHS OF YEAR

Mr. TARVER. How many injunctions have you sought during the first 9 months of this fiscal year?

Mr. WALLING. The Solicitor's Office in their testimony, I think, put in some tables on legal action.

Mr. TARVER. If that has already been inserted in the record I would not care to have it repeated.

Mr. WALLING. If it is not already in, I will see that it is put in. (The statement referred to will be found on p. 162.)

NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CASES INSTITUTED

Mr. TARVER. How many criminal cases have been instituted and what have been the results in such cases, both civil and criminal, as they have finally ended, and how many of the cases are still pending? I would like to have complete information in the record at some point touching on this subject matter, whether from the Solicitor's Office or yours, it makes no difference.

Mr. DODSON. We did insert a table showing the complete activity of the Solicitor's office, and I think that the information desired is in that table.

Mr. WALLING. I have those figures now. I can read them to you at this time, or do you just want them for the record?

Mr. TARVER. For the record, as we only have a few minutes remaining this morning.

Mr. WALLING. There has been less this year than previously. There has been a falling off in the number.

(The statement referred to may be found on p. 162.)

Mr. ENGEL. Coming to your Public Contracts Division, you still have charge of that?

Mr. WALLING. That is now merged with our Division.

Mr. ENGEL. But there are separate records kept for that Division, are there not?

Mr. WALLING. Only in part, Mr. Engel. We can no longer keep separate records of the amount of restitution of wages because in some cases the violation is a violation of both the contract and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. ENGEL. That is right.

Mr. WALLING. So that it is hard to allocate this to the contract and this to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. ENGEL. If you make a comparison of restitutions at present with those of prior years you have to compare your Public Contracts Division restitutions plus your Wage and Hour restitutions with your present figures?

Mr. WALLING. That is right, sir.

WAGE SCALE UNDER WALSH-HEALEY ACT

Mr. ENGEL. Do you fix the wage scale under the Walsh-Healey Act that is paid by these industries manufacturing war materials? Mr. WALLING. Yes; if the contract is over $10,000.

Mr. ENGEL. Do you follow that down through the subcontracts? Mr. WALLING. No; we have no jurisdiction over the subcontracts.

Mr. ENGEL. Just of the main contracts?

Mr. WALLING. Yes.

Mr. ENGEL. You fix the minimum wage rate?

Mr. WALLING. That is right.

Mr. ENGEL. Below which they must not fall?

Mr. WALLING. Yes, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. You fix that minimum wage rate, and you are, under the law, required to fix the wages prevailing in the area for that particular type of employment. In doing that, just what evidence do you require, or how do you fix that rate?

Mr. WALLING. We usually have some kind of a factual survey which is made either by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for instance, or lately, in order to save money, and also in order to save time, we have been appointing a committee from the industry and from labor, and frequently a joint subcommittee of that committee has been responsible for gathering the information.

Very frequently a trade association or a union will have up-to-date figures on the wages that are being paid, which are presented in a summary report form at a public hearing, and arguments will then be made by the parties who contend as to what the wage should be in different places, and as the result of that factual report and such evidence and argument as may be presented, a proposal is drawn up which is then served on the parties, which states that unless there is objection we propose to determine these schedules of wages.

Mr. ENGEL. By the parties you mean the labor groups, if organized, and the employer groups?

Mr. WALLING. And the employers, that is right.

Mr. ENGEL. Do you feel that the wage rates fixed by your Department under the Walsh-Healey Act actually represent the prevailing wage in the area at the time when the job is begun?

Mr. WALLING. Yes, we do.

READJUSTMENT OF WAGE RATES DUE TO COST OF LIVING

Mr. ENGEL. In these war contracts do you at any time, subsequent to the first determination, redetermine the wage rate based on living costs going up or down?

Mr. WALLING. May I answer that question off the record?

Mr. ENGEL. Take it off the record first.

Mr. WALLING. I will tell you why I want to take it off the record. (At this point there was extended discussion off the record.)

INTERFERENCE WITH WORK DUE TO MOVING OFFICE TO NEW YORK

Mr. TARVER. Mr. Walling, you have a part of your organization in New York, and part of it in Washington?

Mr. WALLING. Practically all of it is in New York. We just have a small liaison office here.

Mr. TARVER. Has your work been inconvenienced here by the transfer of the major part of your personnel to New York?

Mr. WALLING. Yes; it has been very much interfered with. Before you came in I made comment on some of the problems that have arisen. We have had serious difficulties because of that.

Mr. TARVER. I do not want to duplicate anything that has already been put in the record. Has the expense of your Division increased materially by reason of that removal?

Mr. WALLING. Unfortunately, it has very materially increased.

EMPLOYEES DRAFTED DURING FISCAL YEAR

Mr. ENGEL. Can you place in the record a statement showing the number of your employees that were drafted during the present fiscal year?

Mr. TARVER. Mr. Engel, would it not be advisable to get a statement of that sort covering the whole Department?

Mr. ANDERSON. That was in line with my request yesterday.
Mr. WALLING. I think it is roughly 30 percent.

Mr. ANDERSON. My request had to do only with the deferments requested.

Mr. WALLING. I think it is roughly 30 percent who have left for the armed forces.

Mr. ENGEL. Would you supplement the information requested by Mr. Anderson by including the number of people who were actually drafted?

Mr. DODSON. Do you want that for the first 3 months of the fiscal year or for the whole year?

(At this point there was discussion off the record.)

Mr. WALLING. Our figure for our Division is about 30 percent. (The statement referred to was supplied to the committee covering all bureaus of the Department.)

Mr. HARE. Mr. Keefe.

Mr. KEEFE. I have a few questions. I cannot pass up Mr. Walling without adverting to my particular pet in connection with this examination.

May I say that I have heretofore written you and the Secretary congratulating you upon the efforts that have been made toward the consolidation of efforts in the Wage and Hour Division and the WalshHealey operations, Mr. Walling?

Mr. WALLING. We are very appreciative of your comments, Mr. Keefe.

Mr. KEEFE. That is working out satisfactorily, is it not?

Mr. WALLING. Yes; I think it is.

Mr. KEEFE. You will recall that I urged that very definitely to both of you?

Mr. WALLING. Yes: I do.

Mr. KEEFE. You will further recall that I have always asked some questions with respect to the work of the division headed by Mr. Zimmer, and I want to ask you a few questions about that, if I may. Mr. WALLING. I will be very glad to have you do so, Mr. Keefe. Mr. KEEFE. That is the Division of Labor Standards?

Mr. WALLING. Yes.

CONSOLIDATION OF INSPECTION FOR SAFETY AND SANITATION INTO INSPECTION SERVICE OF CONSOLIDATED AGENCIES

Mr. KEEFE. Am I correct in the assumption that at the time of the consolidation of the work of the Wage and Hour Division and

the Walsh-Healey Division that there was an attempt made, or considered, to consolidate the work of inspection for safety and sanitation into the inspection service of the consolidated agencies?

Mr. WALLING. Well, I should say that was done, Mr. Congressman. Mr. HARE. Surely.

Mr. WALLING. That has been done, so that all of the inspectors now in the combined division-except in those States where we have an arrangement under which the State, as in your State, for instance, Wisconsin, assumes the responsibility for enforcing the safety and health provisions within that State-are available for safety and health inspection. In all other States, where we do not have such an agreement, the inspectors of the combined divisions are now responsible for making the safety and health inspections.

Mr. HARE. Both under the Walsh-Healey Act and under the Wage and Hour Act?

Mr. WALLING. Yes; except that there is no safety and health requirement under the Wage and Hour Act, but only under the WalshHealey Act.

Mr. KEEFE. It is under the provisions of the Walsh-Healey Act?
Mr. WALLING. That is correct.

USE OF INSPECTION SERVICES OF STATE LABOR DEPARTMENTS

Mr. KEEFE. Now, these so-called contracts that you refere to are contracts entered into between the State labor departments and the Wage and Hour Division, as it is now called, I assume, and the Children's Bureau, whereby the srvices of various State labor departments are utilized to make inspections under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the safety and sanitation provisions of the Walsh-Healey Act?

Mr. WALLING. There are two kinds of agreements, Mr. Keefe. We have three State agreements, and one with the District of Columbia, in which the State department of labor is authorized to make wageand-hour inspections for the Division, on a reimbursable basis and then in addition, we have agreements not on a reimbursable basis where the State assumes the responsibility for making the safety and health inspections for us under the Walsh-Healey Act.

Mr. KEEFE. Just so that we may be clear about it, am I correct in stating that those jurisdictions are Connecticut, Minnesota, the District of Columbia, and North Carolina?

Mr. WALLING. That is right.

Mr. KEEFE. Now, as to those four jurisdictions, the utilization of the State service is on a reimbursable basis?

Mr. WALLING. That is correct.

Mr. KEEFE. In other words, you utilize the facilities of the State labor departments of those four jurisdictions to make inspections and to enforce the provisions of Federal acts?

Mr. WALLING. That is right.

Mr. KEEFE. And to make reports to you?

Mr. WALLING. That is right.

Mr. KEEFE. On a reimbursable basis?

Mr. WALLING. That is right.

Mr. KEEFE. Now, in addition to that, as I understand it, there are a number of other States where programs have been worked out on a nonreimbursable basis?

Mr. WALLING. That is correct.

Mr. KEEFE. With the idea of the elimination of duplication of inspection and reports in connection with the Wage and Hour Act, child labor and industrial inspection?

Mr. WALLING. NO; just safety and health. In the second group there is no responsibility delegated to the State for child labor or wageand-hour inspections, but merely for safety and health inspection under the Walsh-Healey Act, that is, in this second group of States.

Mr. KEEFE. Now, I am reading from the justifications of the Division of Labor Standards, pages 27 and 28, in which this statement appears:

Through the work of the Division agreements have been effectuated between State labor departments and the Wage and Hour Division and the Children's Bureau, whereby, the services of the State labor departments are utilized to make inspections under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the State is reimbursed, in the following jurisdictions: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Minnesota, and North Carolina.

Under these agreements State inspectors who meet qualifications set up by the Federal Government are authorized to inspect for compliance with the Federal wage, hour, and child-labor standards at the same time that they inspect for comparable State laws. The agreements are subject to renewal annually and staff members of the section assist in drafting revisions when needed. The section is responsible for securing clearance in the Wage and Hour Division, the Children's Bureau, and the Secretary's Office, with respect to certain adminis trative actions required under these formal agreements.

In addition to formal agreements, programs have been worked out in the following States on an informal, nonreimbursable basis to eliminate duplication of inspection and reporting in connection with wage-hour, child-labor, and industrial home work enforcement:

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey New York Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

Now, apparently there is some disagreement between your statement and that of Mr. Zimmer, as contained in his justification for the Division of Labor Standards?

Mr. WALLING. No; I think not, because you will notice the sentence begins, "In addition to formal agreements."

Mr. KEEFE. Yes.

Mr. WALLING. The two types of arrangements with the States which I spoke about earlier were those formal agreements, and what Mr. Zimmer means, I think, by these references to program is the informal exchange of information on violations uncovered. For instance, if a State inspector in Wisconsin went in and noticed, in the course of his inspection, that some employees subject o the Wage and Hour Law were not being paid the required minimum wage under the Federal law he would merely make an informal report to us saying, "You'd better make an inspection of the X company, because it would appear to us, from a casual view that they were violating the wage-and-hour law."

Mr. DODSON. That may be unfortunate wording that we used.

Mr. KEEFE. That may be unfortunate wording, and I think it is unfortunate wording because right in the words there it says that the purpose of these informal agreements is to eliminate dupli ation of inspection and reporting in connection with wage-hour, child-labor, and industrial home work enforcement.

I understand from your statement that what that cooperative effort with your organization really means is that an arrangement