Bloch v. Bell, No. 759.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
Writing for the CourtJones, Keith & Jones and Cohen & Fisher, all of Louisville, Ky., for complainant
Citation63 F. Supp. 863
Docket NumberNo. 759.
Decision Date14 April 1945
PartiesBLOCH v. BELL et al.

63 F. Supp. 863

BLOCH
v.
BELL et al.

No. 759.

District Court, W. D. Kentucky, Louisville Division.

April 14, 1945.


Jones, Keith & Jones and Cohen & Fisher, all of Louisville, Ky., for complainant.

Morris, Garlove & Goldsmith and Carl K. Helman, all of Louisville, Ky., for defendants.

MILLER, District Judge.

The complainant Abraham Bloch brought this action as an employee of the defendants W. H. Bell and J. L. Gerrard to recover unpaid wages in the amount of $1344.91, together with liquidated damages in the same amount and attorney's fee, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The defendants claim that the complainant is exempt from the provisions of the Act and in any event the evidence is not sufficient to establish the claim.

63 F. Supp. 864

Findings of Fact

1. On January 20, 1941, Irvin Sotsky and the defendant J. L. Gerrard were partners trading and doing business as the Scot Woolen Company in Louisville, Kentucky. They were engaged in the manufacture of men's suits and wearing apparel in accordance with orders received from customers in other states. After manufacturing the article the Company would ship it to the purchaser at his designated address in the other state. It is stipulated by the parties that the Company and the complainant herein, as one of its employees, were engaged in interstate commerce. On January 1, 1942, the partnership business was incorporated under the same name and the corporation took over the assets of the partnership and continued its business. Upon incorporation the defendant W. H. Bell became a stockholder along with Sotsky and Gerrard. On December 31, 1943, the corporation was dissolved and its business was taken over and thereafter operated by the defendants W. H. Bell and J. L. Gerrard.

2. The complainant Abraham Bloch was employed by the Scot Woolen Company on January 20, 1941, and continued in its employ until January 7, 1944. His original compensation was $30 per week, which was later increased to the amounts indicated at the following times:

$33 per week on May 1, 1941.

$35 per week on September 6, 1941.

$40 per week on October 4, 1941.

$42 per week on October 7, 1943.

$52 per week on December 2, 1943.

He was employed and paid on a weekly wage regardless of the number of hours he worked during any particular week. He was a tailor by occupation and was assigned the duties of shaping and basting coats, and at times also marked the places for buttonholes. The cloth used in the clothes was manufactured from its original shape to its final shape through a series of approximately 12 different operations, the work being passed along from one employee to another as each employee finished its particular work upon the garment. The complainant worked at a bench on the second floor and acted as the foreman of the employees in that part of the building. In addition to the manual work above referred to, he also supervised the passing of the work from one bench to another, had general supervision over the work in that particular part of the building, directed when and for how long certain employees should be laid off from work when the work available was not sufficient to use their services, and exercised his own judgment in giving some orders priority over other orders. Except for the temporary laying off of employees as above referred to he did not have authority to hire or fire employees generally or make such recommendations. His hours of work of the same nature as that performed by other employees exceeded 20% of the number of hours worked in the work-week by the employees under his direction.

3. The regular work-week of the Scot Woolen Company consisted of five days of eight hours each, starting at 8 a. m. and ending at 4:30 p. m., which included the lunch period. The power for operating the machines did not go on until 8 a. m. Employees including the plaintiff were supposed to punch the time-clock upon arrival and upon departure, but this requirement was not enforced with respect to the complainant, and in many instances his time of arrival or time of departure was not so recorded. He would often arrive and start work on matters in which the use of the machines was not necessary before 8 a. m., sometimes a half hour more...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Alaska Intern. Industries, Inc. v. Musarra, Nos. 3652
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • 16 Noviembre 1979
    ...Mitchell v. Reynolds, 125 F.Supp. 337 (W.D.Ark.1954); Renfroe v. Wilson & Co., Inc., 90 F.Supp. 581 (N.D.Fla.1950); Bloch v. Bell, 63 F.Supp. 863 (W.D.Ky.1945), Aff'd, 152 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1946); Walling v. Emery Wholesale Corp., 49 F.Supp. 192 (N.D.Ga.1943), Aff'd, 138 F.2d 548 (5th ......
  • Blain v. General Electric Company, Civ. A. No. 6261.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • 19 Julio 1971
    ...thus is compensable under the Act. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1945); Bloch v. Bell, 63 F.Supp. 863 (W.D.Ky.1945), aff'd, 152 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. Plaintiffs rely on the Interpretative Bulletin on Hours Worked issued by the Wage-Hour Admini......
  • Barrett v. National Malleable & Steel Castings Co., Civil Action No. 5325.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 13 Septiembre 1946
    ...F.2d 294; Fanelli v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 216; Smith et al. v. Porter et al., 8 Cir., 143 F.2d 292; Block v. Bell et al., 63 F.Supp. 863. ...
  • Parks v. Puckett
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • 27 Septiembre 1957
    ...Logan, Inc., D.C.N.J., 98 F.Supp. 1; Marchant v. Sands Taylor & Wood Co., D.C. Mass., 75 F.Supp. 783; Bloch v. Bell, D.C.Ky., 63 F.Supp. 863; Davies v. Onyx Oils & Resins, Inc., D.C.N.J., 63 F.Supp. 777; 169 A.L.R. "However, if an employee proves that he has in fact performed w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Alaska Intern. Industries, Inc. v. Musarra, Nos. 3652
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • 16 Noviembre 1979
    ...Mitchell v. Reynolds, 125 F.Supp. 337 (W.D.Ark.1954); Renfroe v. Wilson & Co., Inc., 90 F.Supp. 581 (N.D.Fla.1950); Bloch v. Bell, 63 F.Supp. 863 (W.D.Ky.1945), Aff'd, 152 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1946); Walling v. Emery Wholesale Corp., 49 F.Supp. 192 (N.D.Ga.1943), Aff'd, 138 F.2d 548 (5th ......
  • Blain v. General Electric Company, Civ. A. No. 6261.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • 19 Julio 1971
    ...thus is compensable under the Act. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1945); Bloch v. Bell, 63 F.Supp. 863 (W.D.Ky.1945), aff'd, 152 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. Plaintiffs rely on the Interpretative Bulletin on Hours Worked issued by the Wage-Hour Admini......
  • Barrett v. National Malleable & Steel Castings Co., Civil Action No. 5325.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 13 Septiembre 1946
    ...F.2d 294; Fanelli v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 216; Smith et al. v. Porter et al., 8 Cir., 143 F.2d 292; Block v. Bell et al., 63 F.Supp. 863. ...
  • Parks v. Puckett
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • 27 Septiembre 1957
    ...Logan, Inc., D.C.N.J., 98 F.Supp. 1; Marchant v. Sands Taylor & Wood Co., D.C. Mass., 75 F.Supp. 783; Bloch v. Bell, D.C.Ky., 63 F.Supp. 863; Davies v. Onyx Oils & Resins, Inc., D.C.N.J., 63 F.Supp. 777; 169 A.L.R. "However, if an employee proves that he has in fact performed w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT