Burk Builders, Inc. v. Wirtz, 22228.

Decision Date27 January 1966
Docket NumberNo. 22228.,22228.
Citation355 F.2d 451
PartiesBURK BUILDERS, INC., Appellant, v. W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, Fla., for appellant.

Bessie Margolin, Associate Solicitor, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Charles Donahue, Solicitor of Labor, Robert E. Nagle, William Fauver, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., for appellee.

Before GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUGHES, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the Secretary of Labor sought to enjoin the appellant from continuing to withhold payments of unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation alleged to be due a number of employees totaling $4,503.24. The case was tried by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The work involved was upon a project for the construction of a new post office building designed to replace the existing main post office in Hollywood, Florida.

The Court decided that the Act was applicable to the project and ordered the payment of the alleged wages to the Secretary of Labor for distribution to the employees "or to their estates if that be necessary." The judgment further directed that any such funds which were not distributed within a reasonable time because the persons entitled thereto could not be found or because of their refusal to accept the money "shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts."

The appellant contends that the Act is not applicable to the project because his contract was not directly with the Government, and that the provision of the judgment as to the payment of money into the Treasury is unauthorized. Appellant insists that any of the mentioned wages which can not be delivered to the persons found to be entitled thereto should remain with it and become its property.

We are convinced that the Act does apply to the project. The appellant knew the background of the dealings between the Government and the person with whom he contracted for the construction, and was well aware that the purpose of the project was to construct a new post office building to replace an old one. On oral argument appellant conceded that there was "a reasonable expectation" that the new building would be dedicated to such use. Warren-Bradshaw...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • McLaughlin v. McGee Bros. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • March 11, 1988
    ...Hodgson v. YB Quezada, 498 F.2d 5 (9th Cir.1974); Hodgson v. Wheaton Glass Co., 446 F.2d 527 (3d Cir. 1971); Burk Builders, Inc. v. Wirtz, 355 F.2d 451, 453 (5th Cir.1966); Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir.1965); Bingham v. Airport Limousine Service, 314 F.Supp. 565, 573 (W.D.Ark.......
  • Usery v. Godwin Hardware, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • December 16, 1976
    ...employees may not be returned to the employer but must be retained in the Treasury, subject to the employees' call. Burk Builders v. Wirtz, 355 F.2d 451, 53 CCH Labor Cases ¶ 31,755 (C.A. 5, 1966); Hodgson v. Quezada, 498 F.2d 5, 74 CCH Labor Cases ¶ 33,090 (C.A. 9, 1974); Hodgson v. Wheato......
  • McLaughlin v. Stineco, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • June 30, 1988
    ...from unfair competition by employers which do not comply. Hodgson v. YB Quezada, 498 F.2d 5, 6 (9th Cir.1974); Burk Builders, Inc. v. Wirtz, 355 F.2d 451, 453 (5th Cir.1966); Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F.2d 901, 904-905 (5th Cir.1965); McGee Bros., 681 F.Supp. at 1136 (and cases cited E. The Resti......
  • Hodgson v. Board of Ed., Parsippany-Troy Hills
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 14, 1972
    ...of the money due is considered a "continuing public offense." Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1965); Burk Builders, Inc. v. Wirtz, supra 355 F.2d 451 (5th Cir. 1966); Wirtz v. English, supra. The 1961 amendment of Section 17 (29 U.S.C. § 217) authorizing the restraint that the Secret......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT