Labor. Weaving Fines. Words, "Fine." In St. 1911, c. 584, providing that "no employer shall impose a fine upon an employee engaged at weaving for imperfections that may arise during the process of weaving," the word "fine" must be taken to mean merely a penalty, arbitrarily inflicted by the employer upon an employee for an imperfection in weaving without regard to whether the imperfection arose from any fault of the employee, by a deduction from the amount of the wages to which the employee is entitled by his contract of employment, whether that amount has been determined by the value of his work or by a fixed rate of compensation.
Where, at the trial of a complaint for an alleged violation of St. 1911, c. 584, which prohibits the imposition by an employer upon an employee engaged at weaving of a "fine" for imperfections that may arise during the process of weaving, it appears that before the alleged offense the employee had been in the employ of the defendant for several months, that there was posted in the room where he worked a "price list for weaving" setting forth the prices to be paid employees for "first quality" and for "second quality" cloth, from which it appeared that for the "second quality" one half as much was paid as for "first quality," that the employee was working with knowledge of the terms of his employment as set forth in the list and had accepted them, that the work of the employee which gave rise to the commission of the alleged offense was examined by competent inspectors whose fairness was not questioned, and that they found that it was of "second quality" and that the employee was responsible for that condition. The employee thereupon was paid at the rate agreed upon for "second quality" production, which was the alleged offense. The amount by which the employee's wages were decreased as the result of the classification of the qualities of the cloth was less than the loss to the defendant resulting from the production of "second quality" cloth. Held, that the defendant had not imposed a "fine" as prohibited by the statute, and that a verdict should have been ordered for him.
St. 1911, c. 584, does not repeal St. 1909, c. 514, §§ 114-116.
SHELDON, J.
It is provided by St. 1911, c. 584, that "No employer shall impose a fine upon an employee engaged at weaving for imperfections that may arise during the process of weaving." Looking at the earlier statute of 1891, c. 125, § 1, and at the decision in the case of Commonwealth v. Perry, 155 Mass. 117, we are of opinion that the word "fine" in the later statute must be taken to mean merely the arbitrary imposition of a penalty for an imperfection in weaving by a deduction from the amount of the wages to which the employee is entitled by his contract of employment, whether that amount has been determined by a quantum meruit or by a stipulation for a fixed rate of compensation. It is intended to prevent the employer from imposing a penalty for an imperfection in the finished product, whether or not due to the fault of the employee, and enforcing its collection by deducting it from what has become due to the employee. So construed, as was said by this court in Commonwealth v. Perry, ubi supra, on pages 120, 121, it could perhaps be sustained as a valid police regulation. See Opinion of the Justices, 163 Mass. 589; Squire v. Tellier, 185 Mass. 18, 20; Commonwealth v. Strauss, 191 Mass. 545, 550, et seq.; Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 200 Mass. 482, 484; Opinion of the Justices, 208 Mass. 619. But that question is not presented.
In the case at bar, it could at any rate have been found that the weaver had received exactly the wages for which he had contracted. The system adopted by the defendant was within the authority given by St. 1909, c. 514, §§ 114-116, and it is not contended that any of the requirements of those sections have been violated. The act of 1911 does not purport to repeal any of those provisions, and it is not necessary to construe it as having that effect.
If the present act did repeal the provisions of St. 1909, c. 514, above referred to, and went to the full extent for which the Commonwealth has contended in this case, it would be difficult, without overruling Commonwealth v. Perry, 155 Mass. 117, to maintain its constitutionality.
The rulings requested by the defendant should have been given. Gallagher v. Hathaway Manuf. Co. 172 Mass. 230.
Exceptions sustained.