-41-


 such time as the Code Authority shall present to
 the Administrator a definition of the term 'semi-
 skilled employeet, which received the approval of
 the Administrator."

 The two subjects, semi-skilled and classification while
 treated in the Code as separate and distinct matters, semi-
 skilled in Section 2 and classification in Section 6 of
 Article IV approved code, are in effect mrt and parcel of
 e.ch other.

 There is no documentary evidence in the files which
 indicates when Section 2 of Article IV was written into the
 approved Code. Certainly it.was not in the various sub-
 mitted drafts or a subject of discussion at the Public
 Hearing, although referred to .by industry in the Public
 Hearing. (See pages 191-196 Transcript of Hearing, Decem-
 ber 8, 1933.)

 However in the drafts of Novenber and December there
appears a Drovision for basic wages. (See Exhibit A, Dart 5,
paragraph 5, page 3; part 6,Daragranh 5, page 3; part 7,
paragraph 5, page 3; part 8, paragraph 5, page 2.

 Since labor was so insistent that classification be
included in the wage provisions (See Transcript first
Hearing, December 8, 1933 pages 61-65) and since the non-
unionized portion of industry who did not classify their
workers as is done in union agreements, following the sec-
tion system, (oage 3, paragraph 1 Appendix G) seriously
objected to its inclusion in the Code, and further that an
examination of Union Agreements contained in Volume A and
a reference to the statement of the Code Authority Labor
member dealing with this subject (See Exhibit K, page 10)
discloses that the term "semi-skilled" does not appear to
have been used in the industry but instead shows the use of
the term "Second class helpers", it is reasonable to sup-
pose that the Administration injected this clause as a com-
promise measure, providing however that the provision be
stayed until the Code Authority should present an accept-
able definition.

 To sup-oort this conclusion is a statement by Code
Director ITittenthal made to the writer September llth,
1935 that since industry could not agree upon classifica-
tion He" York wanting and out-of-town opposed to its in-
clusion, the subject was referred by the Deputy, Dr. Earl
D. Howard, to Mr, Sidney Hillman of the Labor Advisory
Board. He told manufacturers, so- the Director states, that
he offered this clause and industry had better accede to
it or suffer a worse fate by having a code imnoosed upon
them by the Administrator.

 The Director further states that Colonel Lea opposed


9R11