OFFICEOF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OFTEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVER SELLERS
ATTORNEY~GENERAL
Donorable Earry Bengo Crazier
Chairman and ijxecutiveDirector
Texas Unemployment ComppansationCommission
Austin 19, Texas
Opinion Do. 04 \
liehave given requesting
the'.opinionof l&Is
_,. itution of Texas, .
ado River 4uthorlty
olitic and corporate
utbority to exercise
conoemini; the subject matter
The act creating the
ns this language. Ch. 7,
The Court3 have reco;gized and so
the above section and
gencies and political
te, performinq Covcrnmontal function3 and
ootiry a3 counties and other politiccl sub-
Mllaay County :J.Control and I. Dist.'
S.M. (2a) 936 and ~a363 0itoa therein; Lo~or
Colored0 ?ii y v. Chemical D3nk and Trust co., aecia0a
ot yet officially reportad.
The Texas &employment CompensationAct, codified 3s Article
$i221b,Vernon's Civil Ststutes of Texa3, Acnotatoa; 1925, as amended,
provides for each employer subject to the ,2ctto pay tsxes with respect
to wages pcid by it for em loymant. Section 19 (c) (5) of thiisAct
(llrticle522lb-17 (g! (5)7, hoiwver, prcvidos thnt:
.
HonorableH3rry Rcnge Croziar - f-age2
Vbe term lemployment'shall not include:
"(Al Service performed in the employ of this
State, or any politic31 subdivision thereof, or any
instrumentalityof this State or its political sub-
divisions,
". . ."
Since the Lower Colorado River Authority is a Governmental
agency,and a ~OlitiC31 subdivisionof this state, and such agencies
do not coxe rithin the provisions of the Texas Unemployment Conpensa-
: tion Act, It I3 the opinion of this department that this agency Is not
subject thereto. As a consequencethereof, it follow that its em-
ployeesare not entitled to the benefits thereunder.
In resching the.aboveconclusion, viehove not failed to
considerths second paragraph of your letter of request In which you
direct our attention to cases dealing with remedial or regulatory
legislationin which certain Stste,or.governmental instrumentalities
uese subject to such remedial laws upon the bnsis that they were of a
proprietaryor competitivenature and thus did not come within the
ordinaryconstitutionalinhibition of statutory exemption of govern-
a3ntal instrumentalities.
.’I It Is our contention thet the Legisletura hasaouched in
plain and unambiC,uouslanguagewhat employment constitutes and chat
doss not corn0within the purview of employment. For us to expand upon
this plain language would be encroaching upon the province of the
Legislature. This is 'fullybrought forth in the case of Creekmore V.
1ublic Bait Railroad Co.mxission,134 k'6d.(26) 576, certiorari denied
by the Sunram Court of the Gnited States. from which we quOt0 In port
aa folloG9:
"The exclusion provis'ionof Section 3 (d)'of
I the Fair Labor St3ndardsAct is couched in plain ona
unambiguous 1onguaS.eand should be given effect
. as
, it is witten. Appellant strongly contends, noVevor,
that because of the remedial nature of the ;Sctit ~3s
the 1aCislativo Intent to includs vgithinits covor3Se
omployeos such as those v!orkinC;
for the Fublic Eielt
Railroad Cozuniasionfor the City of Xew Orlanns; that
in operatinS the rzilroed the City of X~V Orleans acts
in a purely proprietary calzicity;and that emRloy33s
Of tke railroad should be within the coverage Of the
Act.
xonorablaEsrry i?engeCrazier - &age 3
*In construingthe Act the duty of the Court
is to determineuhat enploysrs and employees are
within itscovdrage, not what e,nployess'should'
have been covered, for the question of who 'should'
be covered is a matter solely nithln the province
of the le@slative branch of the govarnment. The
langunge of Section 3 (d) being plaintiits meaning
oloar, the rsoult reasonable,ne see no reason for
resortinS to extraneous conslderationsIn an effort
to oonstrue and give to such language another and
different mean*. Cf; Helvari V. New YorKTrust
co., 292 U. S, 455 5&+ s ct 82 78 L z& 1361;
United States v. U& Pao: R.'Co.,'278U: S. 269, 49
S. Ct. 133, 73 L. Ed. 322.”
:..
Iieare of the opinion that whether or-not proprietary or
:~. p: competitivefunction of a governmelltalinstrumentalityoreagency
shouldcome within ths provisions of the Texas Unemployment Corn-
FenSation Act are matters solely within the province of the
Legislatureof the State of Texas; that the Legislature has by
Sectionlg (5) (5) ln plain language axempted political subdivisions
end governmentalagencies from the provisions of the Texas Unemploy-
rent CompensationAct, whether their funations be aomptitive or
proprietary,and we see no reason to resort to other COnsider0tiOns
or efforts to construe such language
-. and give it a different meaning*
Yours very truly
.
ATTORNZY GlR?iR4L OF T3XAS
BY Robert 0. Xooh
Assistant
XX:ms