Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry, Case Number: 30566
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | OSBORN, J. |
| Citation | 1943 OK 168,192 Okla. 533,137 P.2d 918 |
| Parties | BROOKS PACKING CO. v. HENRY |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 30566 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1943 |
1943 OK 168
137 P.2d 918
192 Okla. 533
BROOKS PACKING CO.
v.
HENRY
Case Number: 30566
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: May 11, 1943
¶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 night watchman in packing plant whose duties included tending fires, vats, etc., used in processing products for interstate commerce.
A night watchman in a meat packing industry, whose duties include the tending of fires, vats and other utensils used in processing 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.
3. SAME--Defendant employer held not entitled to deductions provided by certain statutory provisions relating to seasonal employment.
Record examined, and held: That the defendant employer was not entitled to the deductions provided by Title 29, U.S. C.A. § 207, subsections (a) and (c), relating to seasonal employment.
R. R. Linker and F. E. Riddle, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Elmore A. Page, Paul L. Olney, and W. L. Shirey, all of Tulsa, for defendant in error,
OSBORN, J.
¶1 William Wesley Henry, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, instituted this action in the court of common pleas of Tulsa county against Brooks Packing Company, hereinafter referred to as defendant, wherein plaintiff sought recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due him as wages while employed by defendant. Plaintiff's action was predicated upon the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Title 29, U. S. C. A. §§ 201-219, 52 Stat. 1060. Issues were joined and the cause proceeded to trial before a jury. During the course of the trial the facts with reference to the period of employment and the payment of wages were stipulated, and it was agreed that, if plaintiff's employment was within the regulatory provisions of the act, he would be entitled to recover. After the introduction of evidence, the trial court ruled that the employment was within the act and directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff. From a judgment thereon, the defendant has appealed.
¶2 Defendant owns and operates a meat packing industry near Tulsa, Okla. Plaintiff entered the employ of defendant on July 9, 1939. His primary duties were those of night watchman, but, in addition thereto, he performed other duties, to which reference will be made later in this opinion. All of the animals slaughtered at the plant are purchased within this state, and all of the meat processed and prepared for market by defendant is sold within this state. It appears that in connection with the slaughter and processing, certain byproducts are produced; that about ten per cent of an animal is inedible; that the inedible portions of the carcasses are placed in a tank and cooked and thereafter placed under hydraulic pressure which removes the grease from the tankage; that said grease is known as B-White grease, which grease is used for the manufacture of soaps; that the remaining meat scraps are placed in bags for marketing; that the blood is cooked in the same tank and the dried blood is thereafter marketed for use in the manufacture of ammonia.
¶3 C. W. Brooks, the general manager and vice president of defendant company, was called as a witness by plaintiff and testified that during the past three years he had sold tankage, blood, and grease in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas; that probably half of said products were sold in Missouri and the remainder was divided between the States of Oklahoma and Kansas. Certain bills of lading were identified and placed in evidence, showing that from November 3, 1938, to January 25, 1940, a number of shipments of said products were made from defendant company to St. Louis, Mo.
¶4 As heretofore stated, plaintiff was employed as a night watchman, but in connection with his duties as such, it was also shown that he tended the fires, vats, and other utensils used in processing the B-White grease, tankage, and desiccate blood.
¶5 The sole question presented herein is whether or not, under the facts as stated, employment of plaintiff was within the regulatory provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Title 29, U. S. C. A. § 206, in part,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cannon v. Miller, 29384.
...Co., La.App., 7 So.2d 397; Helt v. Britten-Fenton Co., Inc., 180 Misc. 1076, 42 N.Y.S.2d 362; Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry, 192 Okl. 533, 137 P.2d 918. It is also true, as contended by the appellants, that the burden of proof is on the employee to establish by a preponderance of the evidence......
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...the decision of the District Court that all other employees were not covered to stand. Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry (1943) 192 Okl. 533, 137 P.2d 918, and its two companion cases involving the same employer, Brooks Packing Co. v. Mathis (1943) 192 Okl. 537, 538, 137 P.2d 922 and Brooks Packi......
-
Selan v. Becker, Civ. A. No. 4306.
...v. Baker, 220 N.C. 52, 16 S.E.2d 471; Sykes v. Lochmann, 156 Kan. 223, 132 P.2d 620; Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry et al., 192 Okl. 533, 137 P.2d 918. The next question for decision is whether plaintiff's employees were paid for overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the reg......
-
Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry, 30566.
...137 P.2d 918 192 Okla. 533, 1943 OK 168 BROOKS PACKING CO. v. HENRY. No. 30566.Supreme Court of OklahomaMay 11, Syllabus by the Court. 1. 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 substan......
-
Cannon v. Miller, 29384.
...Co., La.App., 7 So.2d 397; Helt v. Britten-Fenton Co., Inc., 180 Misc. 1076, 42 N.Y.S.2d 362; Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry, 192 Okl. 533, 137 P.2d 918. It is also true, as contended by the appellants, that the burden of proof is on the employee to establish by a preponderance of the evidence......
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...the decision of the District Court that all other employees were not covered to stand. Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry (1943) 192 Okl. 533, 137 P.2d 918, and its two companion cases involving the same employer, Brooks Packing Co. v. Mathis (1943) 192 Okl. 537, 538, 137 P.2d 922 and Brooks Packi......
-
Selan v. Becker, Civ. A. No. 4306.
...v. Baker, 220 N.C. 52, 16 S.E.2d 471; Sykes v. Lochmann, 156 Kan. 223, 132 P.2d 620; Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry et al., 192 Okl. 533, 137 P.2d 918. The next question for decision is whether plaintiff's employees were paid for overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the reg......
-
Skelly Oil Co. v. Jackson, Case Number: 31058
...or in the production of goods for interstate commerce, 52 Stat. 1060 and 1061; 29 U. S. C. A. 202 and 203. Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry, 192 Okla. 533, 137 P. 2d 918. It contemplates the payment of minimum wages and compensation at the rate of 150% of the regular, as distinguished from the m......