Wirtz v. G & W PACKING COMPANY, CA/4062.
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 210 F. Supp. 726 |
| Decision Date | 28 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. CA/4062.,CA/4062. |
| Parties | W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. G & W PACKING COMPANY and T. L. Weeks, Defendants. |
210 F. Supp. 726
W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff,
v.
G & W PACKING COMPANY and T. L. Weeks, Defendants.
No. CA/4062.
United States District Court W. D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division.
November 28, 1962.
Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Edwin G. Salyers, Atty., Dept. of Labor, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff.
O. G. Calhoun, Jr., Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, S. C., John A. Marion, York, S. C., for defendants.
WYCHE, District Judge.
This action was brought by the Secretary of Labor under the provisions of Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.), and seeks an injunction to restrain the defendants from violations of the Act.
In compliance with Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., I find the facts specially and state my conclusions of law thereon in the above cause, as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The defendant T. L. Weeks is the President and chief stockholder of the defendant corporation G & W Packing Company, a small meat packing house having its place of business in Hickory Grove, York County, South Carolina. The defendants' business operation is divided into two separate and distinct phases, the slaughter room and the meat cutting, boning and packing room operations.
During the period in question there were two employees engaged in the slaughter room operations. These employees slaughter hogs, from which there is no waste, and place the carcasses in the cooler from which they are subsequently removed by employees of the cutting room operation. Similarly, the employees of the slaughter room kill cattle, and after removing the hides and inedible portions, the latter referred to as "offals", the carcasses are placed in the cooling room. The cow hides are laid aside and salted by the slaughter room employees, and are subsequently picked up and purchased by agents and servants of Nat Barron of Columbia, South Carolina. The defendants had no knowledge, nor was there reason that the defendants should have had such knowledge, that Nat Barron, after processing and storing the hides, subsequently shipped them outside the State of South Carolina.
The slaughter room employees place the offals in barrels located in a shed some distance from the slaughter room, and are free to anyone who will pick them up. Some of the barrels containing offals are picked up by employees of Carolina Southern Processing Company of Gastonia, North Carolina, which, based upon estimated weights, pays one cent per pound therefor.
The two slaughter room employees clean and care for the slaughter room, and are the only employees of the defendants who are ever in contact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...the Administrator took the position that all employees were within the Act. The District Court held none of the employees were covered (210 F.Supp. 726). On appeal the Administrator restricted his claim of coverage to the employees whose activities embraced the slaughtering and removal of h......
-
Wirtz v. Old Dominion Corporation, Civ. A. No. 4583.
...1964); Wirtz v. Atlas Roofing, 377 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1967); Wirtz v. Kneece, 249 F.Supp. 564 (D.C. S.C.1966); Wirtz v. G & W Packing, 210 F.Supp. 726, 4 Cir., 324 F.2d 802 (D.C.S.C.1962); Wirtz v. Welfare Finance, 263 F.Supp. 229 (D.C.W.Va SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION Supplementing the opinion fil......
-
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Griffin, Civ. A. No. 4368.
...burden of showing a necessity for the injunctive relief. Fram Corp. v. Boyd, 230 F.2d 931 (5th Cir. 1956); Wirtz v. G & W Packing Co., 210 F.Supp. 726 (W.D.S.C.1962); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, Par. 65.04(1), pp. 1629-30. It has been held that proof in this regard should be clear and that ......
-
Estepp v. Celebrezze, Civ. A. No. 1116.
...after examining all of the medical and other evidence of record in this case, there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary's 210 F. Supp. 726 conclusion that plaintiff does not have an impairment or impairments of sufficient severity to prevent him from engaging in any substantial......
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...the Administrator took the position that all employees were within the Act. The District Court held none of the employees were covered (210 F.Supp. 726). On appeal the Administrator restricted his claim of coverage to the employees whose activities embraced the slaughtering and removal of h......
-
Wirtz v. Old Dominion Corporation, Civ. A. No. 4583.
...1964); Wirtz v. Atlas Roofing, 377 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1967); Wirtz v. Kneece, 249 F.Supp. 564 (D.C. S.C.1966); Wirtz v. G & W Packing, 210 F.Supp. 726, 4 Cir., 324 F.2d 802 (D.C.S.C.1962); Wirtz v. Welfare Finance, 263 F.Supp. 229 (D.C.W.Va SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION Supplementing the opinion fil......
-
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Griffin, Civ. A. No. 4368.
...burden of showing a necessity for the injunctive relief. Fram Corp. v. Boyd, 230 F.2d 931 (5th Cir. 1956); Wirtz v. G & W Packing Co., 210 F.Supp. 726 (W.D.S.C.1962); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, Par. 65.04(1), pp. 1629-30. It has been held that proof in this regard should be clear and that ......
-
Estepp v. Celebrezze, Civ. A. No. 1116.
...after examining all of the medical and other evidence of record in this case, there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary's 210 F. Supp. 726 conclusion that plaintiff does not have an impairment or impairments of sufficient severity to prevent him from engaging in any substantial......