Bumpus v. Continental Baking Co.

• Decision Date: 10 December 1941
• Docket Number: No. 9017.,9017.
• Citation: 140 ALR 1258,124 F.2d 549
• Parties: BUMPUS v. CONTINENTAL BAKING CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

140 ALR 1258, 124 F.2d 549 (1941)

BUMPUS v. CONTINENTAL BAKING CO.

No. 9017.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

December 10, 1941.

W. G. Cavett, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

A. L. Heiskell, of Memphis, Tenn. (Shepherd, Owen & Heiskell, of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.

George B. Searls, of Washington, D. C. (Warner W. Gardner and Irving J. Levy, both of Washington, D. C., Charles H. Livengood, Jr., of Nashville, Tenn., and George B. Searls and Joseph D. Hyman, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for Administrator of Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor, amicus curiae.

Before ALLEN, HAMILTON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

ALLEN, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to § 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Title 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., appellant, who was formerly employed by appellee in its wholesale baking establishment at Memphis, Tennessee, sought to recover unpaid compensation, an equal amount as liquidated damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee. Title 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b).

The District Court, sitting without a jury, found that the appellant was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods in commerce and entitled to the benefits of the Act. This holding is not challenged here. The District Court dismissed the petition, relying upon the principles announced in Reeves v. Howard County Refining Co., D.C., 33 F.Supp. 90, and A. H. Belo Corp. v. Street, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 907, and denied recovery upon the ground that appellant's compensation equaled or exceeded the requirements of the Act. The Belo case, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Fleming v. A. H. Belo Corp., 121 F.2d 207, certiorari granted October 27, 1941, 62 S.Ct. 137, 86 L. Ed. ___, held in substance that § 7 of the Act merely prescribed a fixed minimum rate at which hours in excess of the statutory maximum must be compensated, and that any contract between employer and employee which provided for compensation for overtime hours in excess of that minimum was not affected by § 7, holding that the overtime provisions of the Act are not inserted to limit overtime work, but as a part of the plan to raise sub-standard wages.

The pertinent portions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act read as follows:

"Minimum Wages"

"Sec. 6 § 206. (a). Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce wages at the following rates —

"(1) during the first year from the effective date of this section, not less than 25 cents an hour,

"(2) during the next six years from such date, not less than 30 cents an hour,

"(3) after the expiration of seven years from such date, not less than 40 cents an hour, or the rate (not less than 30 cents an hour) prescribed in the applicable order of the Administrator issued under section 8 208, whichever is lower, and

"(4) at any time after the effective date of this section, not less than the rate (not in excess of 40 cents an hour) prescribed in the applicable order of the Administrator issued under section 8 208."

"Maximum Hours"

"Sec. 7 § 207. (a). No employer shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, employ any of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce —

"(1) for a workweek longer than forty-four hours during the first year from the effective date of this section,

"(2) for a workweek longer than forty-two hours during the second year from such date, or

"(3) for a workweek longer than forty hours after the expiration of the second year from such date,

"unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed."

Concededly appellant was employed by the appellee during the period covered by the complaint at a rate considerably in excess of the minimum wages set by § 6 of the Act, and in excess of such wages plus overtime payments based on the minimum wage. The principal question presented, therefore, is whether § 6 so limits and controls § 7 that an employee whose compensation equals or exceeds the applicable minimum rate for each of the applicable maximum hours permissible without increased compensation, and in addition exceeds one and one-half times the minimum rate for each hour over that maximum number, is not entitled to additional compensation for overtime under § 7. The correlative question is whether the words "regular rate at which he is employed" mean the minimum rate prescribed by § 6. If the sole purpose of § 7 is to eliminate sub-standard wages, and if it is controlled by § 6, the judgment was correct. If, however, the purpose of § 7 is to regulate hours of labor and to eliminate excessive hours by requiring the employer to pay time and a half for overtime at the regular rate paid the employee even though he is paid more than the minimum set in § 6, then the judgment was erroneous.

We think that the judgment of the District Court must be reversed. The wording of § 7 is unqualified and forbids employment of "any * * * employees * * * engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" longer than a specified workweek unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed. Title 29 U.S.C. § 207, 29 U.S.C.A. § 207. The words "minimum wage" or "minimum rate" are not found in § 7. The unmistakable meaning of the language used is that employment for more than the statutory maximum number of hours is intended to entail additional expense to the employer no matter what the regular rate of employment may be unless the employee falls within one of the exempted groups there listed. The appellant here does not fall within any of the exempted classifications. The interpretation adopted by the District Court would make § 7 effective only when the regular rate was at or near the minimum, and deprive it of its clearly intended force as a regulation of hours. We cannot interpret this legislation in such a "spirit of mutilating narrowness." United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 235, 61 S.Ct. 463, 467, 85 L.Ed. 788.

The express purpose of the statute is to eliminate as rapidly as practicable in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, "labor conditions" detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers. Title 29 U.S.C. § 202. Labor conditions clearly comprehend both wages and hours. The maintenance of the "minimum standard of living" necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being of workers embraces both the problem of eliminating starvation wages and the problem of cutting down excessive hours of labor. The text of the Act as a whole indicates that the detrimental labor conditions to which it is directed include long hours as well as low wages.

Also the conclusion of the District Court is squarely counter to the purpose of the Act as shown by its legislative history and background. Without detailed discussion of the statements upon this subject found in the President's message urging the legislation, the various committee hearings and reports, and the discussion on the floor of both houses of the Congress, it suffices to say that these statements strongly support the construction that § 7 of the statute is not merely a part of a statutory plan to raise sub-standard wages. Typical of these statements is that of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, reporting the original bill with amendments, to the effect that "The committee believes that a start should be made at the present session of the Congress to protect this Nation from the evils and dangers resulting * * * from long hours of work injurious to health. This law proposes to accomplish this purpose * * *." Senate Report 884, 75th Congress, 1st Session, July 6, 1937, p. 4. It is true that § 7 imposes a statutory higher rate than the regular rate for overtime hours. The legislative history, however, demonstrates that § 7 has independent vitality in its prohibition of excessive hours and that the imposition on...