Brooks Packing Co. v. Willis
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 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶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.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; William N. Randolph, Judge.
Action by Cecil Willis against the Brooks Packing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.
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.
¶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 employee, were stipulated. The cause came on for trial; a jury was waived; no evidence was introduced by either party, and the cause was submitted to the court upon written and oral stipulations. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.
¶2 Defendant owns and operates a meat packing industry near the city of Tulsa, Okla. Plaintiff was employed by defendant from on or about July 6, 1939, to May 16, 1940. The portions of the stipulations which relate to the plaintiff's duties and activities are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
......Sec. 201 et seq. The defendant-employer operates a small meat packing plant in Anderson, South Carolina.1 The plaintiff was, at the time set forth in the complaint, ... Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry (1943) 192 Okl. 533, 137 P.2d 918, and its two companion cases involving the ...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 ......
-
Martin v. Bouldin Fruit Co.
...... . . This. court in the case of Brooks Packing Co. v. Willis,. 192 Okl. 538, 137 P.2d 923, 924, considered a claim somewhat. similar to ......
-
Atwater v. Gaylord
...... 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 ......
- Brooks Packing Co. v. Willis