Boyls v. Wirtz
| Decision Date | 25 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21873.,21873. |
| Citation | 352 F.2d 63 |
| Parties | O. C. BOYLS, doing business as Boyls Dusting and Spraying Service, Appellant, v. W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Frederic Johnson, Sinton, Tex., for appellant.
Bessie Margolin, Associate Sol., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Earl Street, Regional Atty., Dept. of Labor, Dallas, Tex., William Fauver, Atty., Dept. of Labor, Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Helen B. Willette, Atty., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before BROWN and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and MORGAN, District Judge.
Appellant is engaged in the aerial crop dusting business. He maintains an office, hangar and warehouse at the Municipal Airport in Sinton, Texas. There were numerous employees working at this location. None but the airplane pilot and flagman ever went upon the farm in the performance of the functions of the business.
The Wages and Hours Division of the Department of Labor agreed that the pilot and the flagman were exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but contended that the employees at the office, hangar and warehouse who never went upon the farm were covered. Appellant claimed exemption of these employees under the provisions of Section 13(a) (6) of the Act. The District Court denied exemption for all employees other than the pilot and the flagmen.
In Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755, 69 S.Ct. 1274, 93 L.Ed. 1672 (1949) it was held that the exemptions of Section 13 (a) (6) apply only to work performed by a farmer or on a farm. This disposes of the question raised in this appeal.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reich v. Tiller Helicopter Services, Inc.
...to be done on farms. 29 C.F.R. § 780.136, citing Wirtz v. Boyls Spraying Service, 230 F.Supp. 246 (S.D.Tex.1964), aff'd per curiam, 352 F.2d 63 (5th Cir.1965). Because the legislative history, the Secretary's own regulations, and this court's holding in Osceola Farms all contemplate the nee......
-
Martin v. Tiller Helicopter Services, Inc., Civ. A. No. C-88-357.
...potential applies to various activities of the crew members. The Secretary does not challenge that flaggers can be exempt, Boyls v. Wirtz, 352 F.2d 63 (5th Cir.1965), but does challenge defendants' assertion that travel times and other activities occurring off the farm of the independent gr......
-
Ramirez v. Statewide Harvesting & Hauling, LLC, 20-11995
...repairing of equipment off a farm, are excluded. Hodgson v. Ewing , 451 F.2d 526, 527, 529 (5th Cir. 1971) ; see also Boyls v. Wirtz , 352 F.2d 63, 63 (5th Cir. 1965). In Farmers Reservoir , for example, the Supreme Court concluded that "the physical operation, control and maintenance" of "......
-
Sariol v. Florida Crystals Corp.
...Cane Growers Coop. of Fla., 486 F.2d 1006, 1010-11 (5th Cir.1973); Hodgson v. Ewing, 451 F.2d 526, 529 (5th Cir. 1971); Boyls v. Wirtz, 352 F.2d 63, 63 (5th Cir.1965).1 Delivering fuel to farm machinery and maintaining equipment are, as the district court concluded, not only incidental Suga......