Brooks Packing Co. v. Willis, Case Number: 30660
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | OSBORN, J. |
| Citation | 1943 OK 170,137 P.2d 923,192 Okla. 538 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 30660 |
| Parties | BROOKS PACKING CO. v. WILLIS |
1943 OK 170
137 P.2d 923
192 Okla. 538
BROOKS PACKING CO.
v.
WILLIS
Case Number: 30660
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: May 11, 1943
¶0 1. MASTER AND SERVANT--Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 limited to employees engaged in interstate commerce or in production of goods therefor.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.) is by its terms limited to employees engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce and does not extend to employment that merely affects interstate commerce.
2. SAME--Burden on employee to show his services come within terms of act.
The application of the Fair Labor Standards Act, supra, depends upon the character of the employee's activities; and the burden is upon said employee to prove that, in the course of performing services for the employer and without regard to the nature of said employer's business, he was, as such employee, engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce within the meaning of the act.
3. SAME-Action by employee against meat packing company to recover minimum wages fixed by act-Failure of plaintiff to sustain burden of proof.
Defendant, operator of a wholesale establishment, purchased certain commodities outside of the state for sale to retail trade within the state. In an action by plaintiff, employee of defendant, to recover the minimum wages fixed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, supra, it was shown that plaintiff's duties consisted of packing said commodities and shipping the same to the retail trade, but there was no showing that said goods had not acquired a fixed situs within the state and were not held for local disposition or use. Held, that plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof that he was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the act, or in the production of goods for interstate commerce.
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 action was commenced in the court of common pleas of Tulsa county by Cecil Willis, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, against Brooks Packing Company, hereinafter referred to as defendant, wherein the plaintiff, as an employee of the defendant, sought recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due him as wages while employed by defendant. The cause of action was predicated upon the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Title 29, U. S. C. A. §§ 201-219, 52 Stat. 1060. The facts with reference to the payment of wages, the period of employment, and the nature of the duties and activities of plaintiff as such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...same employer, Brooks Packing Co. v. Mathis (1943) 192 Okl. 537, 538, 137 P.2d 922 and Brooks Packing Co. v. Willis (1943) 192 Okl. 538, 137 P.2d 923, make clear the distinctions to be followed in determining who among the employees of a small meat packing plant, such as that with which we ......
-
Atwater v. Gaylord, 2362
...commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. Brooks Packing Company v. Willis, 192 Okla. 538, 137 P. 2d. 923. The court cannot take judicial notice of the interstate nature of the defendant's business, or of the plaintiff's activities connect......
-
Martin v. Bouldin Fruit Co., Case Number: 31212
...step in the local distribution of the poultry and is not covered by the act." ¶9 This court, in the case of Brooks Packing Co. v. Willis, 192 Okla. 538, 137 P.2d 923, considered a claim somewhat similar to the claim of plaintiff in the instant case, the facts therein making applicable the r......
-
Harland Oil Co. v. Pattison, Case Number: 31531
...touching on the interstate movement of the oil. Following the various federal decisions, we said in Brooks Packing Co. V. Willis, 192 Okla. 538, 137 P. 2d 923, that the burden is on the claimant to prove that he engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce. The actual existenc......
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...same employer, Brooks Packing Co. v. Mathis (1943) 192 Okl. 537, 538, 137 P.2d 922 and Brooks Packing Co. v. Willis (1943) 192 Okl. 538, 137 P.2d 923, make clear the distinctions to be followed in determining who among the employees of a small meat packing plant, such as that with which we ......
-
Atwater v. Gaylord, 2362
...commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. Brooks Packing Company v. Willis, 192 Okla. 538, 137 P. 2d. 923. The court cannot take judicial notice of the interstate nature of the defendant's business, or of the plaintiff's activities connect......
-
Martin v. Bouldin Fruit Co., Case Number: 31212
...step in the local distribution of the poultry and is not covered by the act." ¶9 This court, in the case of Brooks Packing Co. v. Willis, 192 Okla. 538, 137 P.2d 923, considered a claim somewhat similar to the claim of plaintiff in the instant case, the facts therein making applicable the r......
-
Harland Oil Co. v. Pattison, Case Number: 31531
...touching on the interstate movement of the oil. Following the various federal decisions, we said in Brooks Packing Co. V. Willis, 192 Okla. 538, 137 P. 2d 923, that the burden is on the claimant to prove that he engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce. The actual existenc......