Wirtz v. G & W PACKING COMPANY, 8999.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | SOBELOFF, , BRYAN, Circuit , and THOMSEN |
| Citation | 324 F.2d 802 |
| Parties | W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. G & W PACKING COMPANY and T. L. Weeks, Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 8999.,8999. |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1963 |
324 F.2d 802 (1963)
W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant,
v.
G & W PACKING COMPANY and T. L. Weeks, Appellees.
No. 8999.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued September 30, 1963.
Decided December 4, 1963.
Jacob I. Karro, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor (Charles Donahue, Sol., Bessie Margolin, Assoc. Sol., Caruthers G. Berger, Atty., and Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, on brief), for appellant.
O. G. Calhoun, Jr., Greenville, S. C. (John Marion, York, S. C., on brief), for appellees.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, BRYAN, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
THOMSEN, District Judge.
This action was filed by the Secretary of Labor to enjoin a South Carolina packing company (G & W) and its president (Weeks) from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act1 with respect to twelve of its employees, two of whom worked in the slaughter room and the others in the meat cutting, boning and packing operations. The district judge held that none of the employees was covered by the Act, and that even if any were covered, the circumstances did not call for the issuance of an injunction. The Secretary has appealed from the decision only insofar as it relates to the two employees in the slaughter room.
The duties of those two employees consisted of slaughtering hogs and cattle, removing the hides and offal from the slaughtered cattle, salting the hides, packing the offal into barrels and moving the carcasses to the cooling rooms. It does not appear that any part of the hogs was ever shipped outside South Carolina, but the hides of the cattle were purchased by one Nat Baron, who shipped them to out-of-state tanneries, and the offal was purchased by Carolina Processing Co., which sent its truck to pick up and transport the offal to its plant in Gastonia, North Carolina. The sales of hides and offal amounted to 2% of G & W's business.
The evidence shows that the time spent each week by the two slaughter room employees on work relating to the interstate aspects of G & W's business was substantial. The sales and shipments of hides and offal were not sporadic and occasional, but a regular part of the business. It is immaterial that those items represented only a small portion of G & W's total sales. Mabee v. White Plains Pub. Co., 327 U. S. 178, 66 S.Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607; Crook v. Bryant, 4 Cir., 265 F.2d 541; Walling v. Peoples Packing Co., 10 Cir., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shultz v. Blaustein Industries, Inc., Civ. No. 20250
...of goods for commerce. A number of analogous cases in this and other Circuits support this argument. Wirtz v. G & W Packing Co., 324 F.2d 802 (4 Cir. 1963); Tilbury v. Mitchell, 220 F.2d 757 (5 Cir. 1955), aff'g Tilbury v. Rogers, 123 F.Supp. 109 (W.D.La.1954); Walling v. Peoples Packing Co......
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...production for commerce." (Note 9, p. 240 of 132 F.2d) The necessary implications of Wirtz v. G & W Packing Company (C.C.A. 4 Cir. 1963) 324 F.2d 802 are to the same effect. In a meat packing plant operated similarly to that involved in the Peoples Packing Case, the Administrator took the p......
-
Wirtz v. Old Dominion Corporation, Civ. A. No. 4583.
...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 filed herein April 4, 196......
-
Nunn's Battery and Electric Company v. Wirtz, No. 20347.
...United States v. Darby, 1941, 312 U.S. 100, 123, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430; Wirtz v. G & W Packing Co., 4 Cir. 1963, 324 F.2d 802, 803; Southern Calif. Freight Lines v. McKeown, 9 Cir. 1945, 148 F.2d 890, cert. denied, 326 U.S. 736, 66 S.Ct. 46, 90 L.Ed. 439; New Mexico Pu......
-
Shultz v. Blaustein Industries, Inc., Civ. No. 20250
...of goods for commerce. A number of analogous cases in this and other Circuits support this argument. Wirtz v. G & W Packing Co., 324 F.2d 802 (4 Cir. 1963); Tilbury v. Mitchell, 220 F.2d 757 (5 Cir. 1955), aff'g Tilbury v. Rogers, 123 F.Supp. 109 (W.D.La.1954); Walling v. Peoples Packing Co......
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...production for commerce." (Note 9, p. 240 of 132 F.2d) The necessary implications of Wirtz v. G & W Packing Company (C.C.A. 4 Cir. 1963) 324 F.2d 802 are to the same effect. In a meat packing plant operated similarly to that involved in the Peoples Packing Case, the Administrator took the p......
-
Wirtz v. Old Dominion Corporation, Civ. A. No. 4583.
...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 filed herein April 4, 196......
-
Nunn's Battery and Electric Company v. Wirtz, No. 20347.
...United States v. Darby, 1941, 312 U.S. 100, 123, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430; Wirtz v. G & W Packing Co., 4 Cir. 1963, 324 F.2d 802, 803; Southern Calif. Freight Lines v. McKeown, 9 Cir. 1945, 148 F.2d 890, cert. denied, 326 U.S. 736, 66 S.Ct. 46, 90 L.Ed. 439; New Mexico Pu......