Brooks Packing Co. v. Mathis, Case Number: 30567

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: OSBORN, J.
• Citation: 137 P.2d 922,192 Okla. 537,1943 OK 169
• Parties: BROOKS PACKING CO. v. MATHIS
• Decision Date: 11 May 1943
• Docket Number: Case Number: 30567

1943 OK 169
137 P.2d 922
192 Okla. 537

BROOKS PACKING CO.
v.
MATHIS

Case Number: 30567

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: May 11, 1943

Syllabus

¶0 1. MASTER AND SERVANT--Employee covered by Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 if substantial part of his activities relates to production of goods for interstate commerce.

The application of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.) depends upon the character of the employee's activities. If a substantial part of said activities relates to production of goods for interstate commerce, such employee is covered by the act.

2. SAME--Act held to cover employee of meat packing plant with duties connected with processing of products for interstate commerce.

An employee of a meat packing industry, whose duties are connected with the processing of grease, tankage and desiccate blood, which products are produced for interstate commerce, is engaged in an "occupation necessary to the production" of goods, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, supra, regulating the hours of service and wages of employees engaged in the "production" of goods in interstate commerce.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Grady S. Cornett, Judge.
Action by Ben Mathis against the Brooks Packing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. R. Linker and F. E. Riddle, both of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Elmore A. Page and Coffey,& Coffey, all of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

OSBORN, J.

¶1 This is a companion case to Cause No. 30666, Brooks Packing Co. v. William Wesley Henry, 192 Okla. 533, 137 P. 2d 918, this day decided.

¶2 The duties performed by the plaintiff herein were not identical with the duties performed by the plaintiff in the above-styled case, but it is stated in the brief of the plaintiff in error that "There is no claim made by plaintiff for overtime labor and services, other than as relate to what is known as B-White grease, tankage and blood, described in the record as inedible, such things as were made from the refuse." In the light of this admission, our decision in cause No. 30566, supra, is determinative of the issues presented herein.

¶3 Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the trial court in the instant case is affirmed.

¶4 CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, WELCH, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. BAYLESS, J., absent.