-. .
TEXIEA~OKNEY GENERAL.
oe-rExAs .
. Au- 1s. TEXAE
PRICEDANIEL
ATTORiaY GENERAL
October 27, 1952
.
Hon. -Sam i. Davis Oplniah NO+ .V-:-$532
Dlst~lct Attorney
HQIMton; Te.xas He’: ‘Necessitg. that ati ~eniployer
.I allow employims tlma off
. to vote .uhen the employees
. have sufficient time to
,Dear Sk .’,vote’ outs+ w,o,+lng
. hours.
.*a.,
. kou hi& r.aquegted. in’ op&i&i en’the “&U.~U- ’
$iig ~ques~loa:
‘l!Doei Article 209 Qf ttie’ Tekas P&k"
C.ode .require an employer to give ari em-
ployee’. t~lme off to vote, either with’or :
without ptiy, where he har sufflci,ent *line
to vote out ~1~~ hi a wprki$@ houre?*1
. .:.;... ,,.’
ArtlOle @W,.; Perkon* 8 Penal C’oaO;- reads8
Whbever .bef&s to ai em~loj& ei- i ‘.
,-titled to %ote the prlvlle&e of attending
the :f. oils, or subjects suoh,e loyee to a
pev ty;or,. deduotiQn of ‘wages “%acause of. the
eZeroise.‘3f. s\rc& privilege, .shall, be fined
not to exc6ed -five’ ‘huMred dollars. *
.
The s6atkte declares’ tk ofidlirbs~;~..naae~yr
(1) refusl an. employee ,the prltllege of atteridlng.. ~.
the .polls; ( 1 sub ectlng the employee. to ‘a’ deductI&
of wiges be.cause
’ cd .the exercise
.Thus. it is. seen t@t the p$vllS
ma exeralse without deduction .o wage&under t
OK olaose of, the 4tatute ..ls’ Idetitt’icaX’SrIth. the rlvi-
lege granted UadrL’t& fir&t, cl@uJe. ,~Z$ Under t ii e ~.
f lrst. claUs& th+ tiWloj;rr $ouid :b,a .e.atifled to demand
tlnm oif from work in order, to vat& ‘by virtue of ‘the
‘seaond blade the crmployer could noi atike a deduction
froiabid fiiy beoaud) of suoh ab~sence.
I
The ‘only.,questlon to be cob3e&d h&e is
*whet’fier b;$tlcli’209 aeans that ti BapiIojer..ln all ‘.. :
cases. must permit hls”Wployee’s tij irot? during, work-
ing hours or kðer ‘It means only t@at*‘an: kmplzoyer
/’
. ; t...’
‘P,. h,
. . ‘, ‘l’. :.. - *. .
.
hon. Sam W. Davis, p&e 2 (V-i532),
cannot reiuse to allow an employee time off If by such
a refusal the employee would be deprived of an oppor-
tunlty to vote,
In Attorney Wneralls Opinion O-6242 (19441,
one of the questions presented vas whether an employ-
ee working only a part of the tllm, the., polls ar4. open
on election day 1s entitled to absent himself from his
job for the purpose of voting. A further qu6stlon was
whether the employme 1s privileged to. leave his .Job in
order. to vote at any time he de~slres or whether the
employer Is within his rights In prescribing the time
allowed during the day for tha’t purpose. In answer
to the first question, it was stated that an employee
Is entitled to absent himself from. h@ job for a’rea,i
sonable time, for the purpos4 gf voting, as explalned~
In the answer to the oth@ qusstlon; which stated:~
*‘Bearing In mind that our bolls are
open until 7rOO P.M. that a statute
should be Interpreted by its equity, and
of’ the Interdependence of employer and
employee in our Industrial alvllleatlon,
It la our opinion that’ an employer Is,
within the statute and his rlghts~ In preL
scribing the time allowed durjng the day
for the purpose of voting. The time al-
lowed should be sufficient and fair so as
to fully and completely permit the em-
.ljleyee to exercise his suffrage. Such . ‘~
regulations would vary according to local
: aondlt$ons; but it ‘should give the employ-
ee ampke and convenient tire within which
to vote.m . . ..
!!e think the opin&i was Intended tb’mean
that an employee Is entitled to. a reasonable length of
free time during polling hours and .that if he will have
sufflclgnt free,tlme to vote 6nly by tinking a Dart ~of
hi.8 working -day9 the em ofer mmst allow him to take
off enough tlms to enabp” e him to ittend the polls while
they’ are open. The opinion went ‘on to say that the
amount of time which must be allowed will vary accord-
ing to local conditions. We think the term “local con-
ditions” was Intended to Include all the varlouo fao-
tors which would enter Into the time which should be
allowed ln each particular case, one of which would be ..
the amount of time the employee had frse bifore’ or af-
t’er vork.
.’
Hon. ‘Sam3/.~iavls, page 3 (V-1532)
#a v, Day-Brlte~ Llm 220
&Wad 782%4o.A;;. 1949) , the cpurt had befoGi It a
st,atute which read:.
“Any perron entitled to vote at anf
eleotlon In this state shall on the day
of ,moh elect~lon, be entitled .to absent
himself from anjr.sel?vlces or emplo ent
In which he Is theii engaged or empp” :.oyed.,
.fo.r a pe’rlod.of four houm between the
times of opening and closing the polls;
and such-‘voter ishall. ‘not, because of so.
absenting himself,’ be, liable to any pen-
alty: Provided, however, &hat his em-
ployer may specify the hours diirl’ng
which such employee may absent himself ” :’
as aforesaid. Any person or, corporation ‘.’
who shall refuse to any employee, the
privilege hereby conferred, or shall dls-
charge or threaten to:dlscharge tiny em’-
:
-
~‘.
.. . ployee for absenting *himself from his..
work for the purpose of.sald election,
or shall cause any employee to suffer
any penalty or deduction of’.wages be-
cause of the exercise of such privilege,
or who shall; directly or indirectly,
violate the provisions o$ this section,
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
and. on .convlttlon thersof be ,f lned In
~~,a~ snot e,xceeding five hundred dol-
.,
The court constrned 4& sfat&Zto mean that
an employee itaa entitled, to’abseiit h$iaself from wo.pk
for a aufflclent ,length Of time to give’ him f@r fi?ee
hoate d-lag, tttd plrlo&::t~tL~e pollb wese dpdn; #a-t
,I . . i Gne ‘theory advadcbd Is that .’ ‘.
under this section the employee .is clnbStl$
to four hours! absenos fro@ .&is regular
‘working hours on the day of election, where-
as another theory advanced ‘1s th::t the em-,
ployee is entitled to four hoursi time In
which to vote during the thlrte~en hour8 ‘oom-
prlsing an election day* This last stated
theory whfch we %hlnk Is correct t meane
‘that I? the ,employee+s regular working day
leaves him at least four coilsacutlve hours
on election day during whtch he would not
:
.
Hon. Am Wi Davis, paga 4 (v-1532)
be engaged in actual seixlce to his es-
. ployer, the object and the ,gurpose ,of.
the statute has been met ,, and such em-
ployee Is not entitled to be absent from
his rcgula,r working hours at’ all; or, if
such time when the employee’& not. ac-
tuall$&n:age+ in service to his employ-
er is less than four hours .(ln this.aase
two and, one-half hours), the employer
shall permit the absence of -the employee
from his services for a sufficient time
(In this case one and one-half h6urs) to
ma up four full ho&e., e ‘. et’
The. cou& stated the purpose of the M.ssouri
statute In $bo following ,Sang*age:
.
~. “That every c9Mrm -#hoaM be given
!
both the ‘iight ‘and the ‘oppotitunfty to
‘vote .id a matter of publia intere~st, aad
law having for &t$ purpose the iuar-
aY’
;$o;:dof 6uch -right and opportuhlty
npheld I$ It is oeslble to do
t
so0 3uc“R tre take i.t was L J.eglslatlte
the enactment of Sectlon-
m;:” Pnd the purpose 0~ leglslatlre
,.
Intent wad not to financially enrich the
voter or to place an unnoae@rary and M-
rgtisonsble burden on the rmoyer. i a .c
1
Xhlle the Toxaa statute does not-fix the letigtti’of time
which is aonrldered sufficient f@r 3otingi the purpose
of these :tw~: rtatutos IS the ~ry.~ The essential dii-
~$orettcr~ etvoea tbr Xls#ourlrtatutr apd the Wxas stat-
citr,.ls. tL t the Gtter makes a detrrainatlon OS ,the
t&m tb b8 s;lloMd depend upon the olrcuwtanoss in each
.putiOular oaaa, euch aa the a#uat of time available ,
uatr¶Arv&jag h-s, the dilltLrvar the employee mU&%
travel %a reruh’ tM polling, pla&a +nd the time required .
for traversing the distance:by available nodes of travel, ..
congestion at the polls, eta.
t Is not rsqalrid
ro the employee
.
Hon. Sam’Wi Davis, page .5 (V-1532)
oi ~attendi~ .the polls or if ‘wage.s”are deducted Sor
such additI,onal klme. gufficiency of time is, of,
course,, a ‘question of’ fact deperfding upon the olrcum-
stances izr eeoh particu+r aase.
.
:
&g&g&g ‘~-:
.1
:) Artlclfi'i09'
v*p&.;‘i&a ndt r&&irr~... . .
an employers
.t~ailov anyempltir time dff ..
to vote whijre .the employee has :Jwflcient
time to ‘vote outside hi$,vorki hours.~
.c
,If an elpployee does not have..s 3 ?lclent
tilae to ‘vote ‘outside. his working hours, it
would be violative of Artiale:,209, V.P .C.,
for an.F.employer to deny-him $uch additional,
time as’is necessary to att,ehd the polla
or to deduct wages for such addltlonal’tine,
What constitutes a suffloleht time for vot-
ing is e question of fact depending upon
the. circumstances ,ti each particular case .~.
Pours very truly, ’
APPROVED: PRICE DAnfEL
l:’~~ Attorney General
E. Jaoobson
.&ecutive Assistant
Mary K, Wall
MIW:vb Asslstant
:i.