Lexplug logoLexplug

Bunting v. Oregon

Supreme Court of the United States
243 U.S. 426, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2008, 37 S. Ct. 435 (1917)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state statute limiting the hours of labor in industrial establishments to ten per day, with a provision allowing for overtime work at a higher rate of pay, is a valid exercise of the state's police power to protect public health and does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Facts:

  • The State of Oregon enacted a law prohibiting the employment of any person in a mill, factory, or manufacturing establishment for more than ten hours in one day.
  • The statute included a proviso allowing employees to work overtime, not to exceed three hours in a day, on the condition that they be paid at a rate of time-and-a-half for the extra hours.
  • The law provided exceptions for watchmen and employees engaged in making necessary repairs or handling emergencies.
  • Bunting managed a flour mill belonging to the Lakeview Flouring Mills corporation.
  • Bunting employed a worker named Hammersly at the flour mill.
  • Hammersly was not a watchman nor engaged in emergency repairs.
  • Bunting required Hammersly to work for thirteen hours in a single day.
  • Bunting did not pay Hammersly the prescribed time-and-a-half rate for the overtime hours worked.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of Oregon indicted Bunting for violating the ten-hour work statute.
  • Bunting filed a demurrer to the indictment in the state trial court, arguing the law was unconstitutional.
  • The trial court overruled the demurrer.
  • Bunting was tried, found guilty, and fined $50.
  • Bunting filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which the trial court denied.
  • Bunting appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.
  • The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon affirmed the conviction and the validity of the statute.
  • Bunting filed a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state statute limiting the workday in mills and factories to ten hours, while permitting up to three hours of overtime at a rate of time-and-a-half, constitute a valid health regulation under the police power or an unconstitutional interference with the right of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice McKenna

Yes, the statute is a constitutional exercise of the state's police power aimed at preserving employee health. The Court rejected the argument that the law was a disguised wage regulation merely because it required overtime pay. Instead, the Court reasoned that the intent of the law was clearly to establish a standard ten-hour day for health reasons. The provision requiring time-and-a-half pay for the additional three hours was viewed not as a wage-fixing mechanism, but as a permissive penalty or burden designed to deter employers from utilizing the overtime option and to facilitate enforcement of the ten-hour standard. The Court held that it need not determine the wisdom of the legislation, only whether it fell within the state's admitted police power. Since the legislature and the state courts deemed the restriction necessary for health, and statistics showed ten hours to be a global standard, the Court found the regulation reasonable and not arbitrary. The classification of mills and factories was also upheld as valid.


Dissenting - Chief Justice White, Justice Van Devanter, Justice McReynolds

No, the statute is unconstitutional. (Note: The dissenters did not provide a written opinion, simply noting their dissent. Contextually, they likely viewed the statute as an impermissible interference with liberty of contract, consistent with the earlier Lochner era jurisprudence).



Analysis:

Bunting v. Oregon is historically significant because it effectively, though not explicitly, overruled the reasoning in Lochner v. New York (1905). In Lochner, the Court struck down a ten-hour limit for bakers as a violation of the right to contract. Here, just 12 years later, the Court accepted a ten-hour limit for factory workers—even one that included a wage regulation component (overtime pay)—by accepting the state's assertion that it was a health measure. This case marks a pivotal shift in the 'Lochner era,' signaling the Court's increasing willingness to defer to state police powers regarding labor regulations and the protection of workers' physical well-being over strict property rights and freedom of contract.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bunting v. Oregon (1917)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"