People v. Power

159 Cal.App.2d Supp. 869 (1958) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

v.

RALPH E. POWER, Appellant.

California Court of Appeals.

Apr. 4, 1958. Procopio, Price, Cory & Schwartz and Kenyon C. Keller for Appellant.

James Don Keller, District Attorney (San Diego), and Albert L. Wells, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.

Pauline Nightingale, Leon H. Berger and Conrad Lee Klein, Attorneys for Division of Labor Law Enforcement, Department of Industrial Relations, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondent.

Before Turrentine, P. J., Glen, J., and Burch, J.

THE COURT.

The defendant appeals from a misdemeanor conviction upon three counts of violation of the State Labor Code. He was charged in the first count with a violation of section 216; in the second count with a violation of section 222; in the third count with a violation of section 204, and in the fourth count with a violation of section 207. He was acquitted on the fourth count but convicted on the other three.

The facts involved, insofar as they are necessary to a decision of this matter, are not in substantial dispute. In June, 1955, the defendant employed one Silas Brewer in connection with his business. At the time of the employment it was mutually agreed that Brewer should receive as pay the sum of $1.50 per hour. In October, 1955, by like mutual agreement, this pay was increased to $1.65 per hour. Brewer continued [159 Cal.App.2d Supp. 871] in the employment until May, 1956. Both rates of pay are in excess of any minimum wage law. There is no question but that the wages agreed upon were at all times paid to and received by Brewer at the times and in the manner required by law.

The contention arises from the fact that at the time of his employment there was in existence an agreement between defendant and the Shopmen's Local Number 627. The contention was made after the termination of Brewer's employment that by this agreement he should have been paid $1.75 an hour, the defendant contending that Brewer was employed simply as a handyman or general utility man and that his wages were not covered by the union contract. It will be unnecessary for the court in this opinion to determine the question of the construction of the agreement for the reason that the important point is that Brewer was hired at an agreed rate of wages and was paid that wage, and this dispute did not arise until after the termination of his employment.