Burke v. Mesta Mach. Co.
Decision Date | 27 July 1948 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2744. |
Citation | 79 F. Supp. 588 |
Parties | BURKE et al. v. MESTA MACH. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Mortimer B. Wolf, of Witt & Cammer, all of New York City, and Ernest G. Nassar, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.
John C. Bane, Jr., and John G. Wayman, of Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
This action is brought pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), and which must be considered in light of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 84, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq. Frank Burke and Napoleon Massa brought the suit as representatives of four hundred fifty-one (451) employees of the defendant.
Plaintiffs seek to recover overtime compensation which it is claimed should have been paid under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, a reasonable attorney's fee and the costs of the action, as authorized and required by Section 16(b) of the Act.
After the trial, but before the submission of arguments or any disposition of the case, the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 was approved. On June 11, 1947, defendant presented an amendment to its answer, by which it has pleaded the additional defenses permitted by Section 9 and Section 11 of the Portal-to-Portal Act.
The gravamen of the suit is that between the time that the Fair Labor Standards Act became effective on October 25, 1938, and May 1, 1943, defendant did not compensate the employees for overtime hours "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which (they were) employed," as required by Section 7(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 207(a). Instead, defendant paid for statutory overtime hours at one and one-half times the "basic hourly rate" which it established for each employee, which was not the "regular rate" prescribed by the Act.
Incentive bonus earnings were paid to the employees under a long-established bonus system in the plant whereby employees who performed work in less than a prescribed standard time received as additional compensation pay for one-half of the time saved at the basic hourly rate established by defendant for each employee. Defendant failed to include these incentive earnings in the "regular rate" of the employees and to compute overtime compensation under the Act upon such "regular rate" until May 1, 1943. Instead, defendant paid statutory overtime only on the "basic hourly rate."
The right of any plaintiff to recover, without consideration of the many other involved factual and legal questions which exist, in the first instance must be premised on the fact that each plaintiff was paid an incentive bonus during some pay period in which he had also been allowed overtime hours.
This consideration eliminates from any further part in the case one hundred seventy-six (176) individuals who were listed as plaintiffs in the action. Said plaintiffs received no incentive bonuses in any pay period during which they worked any overtime and, therefore, no error in the defendant's manner of computing overtime upon incentive bonuses could have affected them.
For other reasons, which are not material to the determination of the issues, additional plaintiffs were dropped from the suit.
As a result thereof the list of four hundred fifty-one (451) plaintiffs has been reduced to two hundred fifty-five (255).
The applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to be considered in the adjudication of the questions which exist are as follows:
* * * * * *
The applicable provisions of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 61 Stat. 84, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq., to be considered in the adjudication of the questions which exist are as follows:
Defendant is engaged at its plant in West Homestead, Pennsylvania, in the manufacture of steel rolling mill machinery and equipment, including strip mills, cast iron and steel and forged rolls, blooming mills and hot strip mills. It has been engaged continuously in this type of production since 1898, and at all times since October 25, 1938. Its normal products are large machines, custom built for the owners of steel and metal working plants and establishments, commonly costing several million dollars each, and each requiring a year or more of manufacturing and construction work in the defendant's plant; some of the machines of this kind built between 1938 and 1943 were sold for installation within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and others for use in other States.
The production of goods by the defendant for interstate commerce was spread throughout each year, and according to the records of the company during the whole of the period of time involved in this proceeding, part of each day's goods produced would be sent in interstate commerce. During each calendar year between 1938 and 1943 the defendant manufactured and shipped to purchasers outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania products of a value of at least $250,000. Subsequent to this country being involved in the Second World War, the defendant had numerous government contracts for the production of materials and other equipment for the war effort. In this connection the materials or goods were sold to the United States Government at the plant where they were produced and the defendant did not actually deliver the goods outside the state of Pennsylvania.
The company normally employs three thousand (3,000) men but during the war the number was expanded to approximately four thousand five hundred (4,500). The company does not maintain any type of separation, in so far as its production...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Addison v. Huron Stevedoring Corp.
...class of employers to which he belonged. See Ferrer v. Waterman S. S. Co., D.C. Puerto Rico 1949, 84 F.Supp. 680; Burke v. Mesta Mach. Co., D.C.W.D. Pa. 1948, 79 F.Supp. 588; Jackson v. Northwest Airlines, D.C.Minn. 1948, 76 F.Supp. 121, reversed 8 Cir., 185 F.2d 74, where the courts have s......
-
Hartmaier v. Long
...of days in a workweek.4 Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515; Burke v. Mesta Machine Co., D.C.W.D.Pa., 79 F.Supp. 588, 596; Annotations, 169 A.L.R. 1337; 152 A.L.R. 1041.5 Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 524, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638;......
-
Marshall v. Baptist Hospital, Inc.
...or was qualified or incomplete would put the employer on notice that his reliance was not made in good faith. Burke v. Mesta Machine Co., 79 F.Supp. 588, 611 (W.D.Pa.1948). The opinion letters and the Field Operations Handbook are replete with language that conveys to the reasonable reader ......
-
Wells v. City of Fairmont
...when, through innocent mistake or employee fraud, an employer has paid more overtime than required by statute, see Burke v. Mesta Machine Co., 79 F.Supp. 588 (D.C.Pa.1948); Harrington v. Empire Const. Co., 71 F.Supp. 324 (D.Md.1947), modified on other grounds, 167 F.2d 389 (4th Cir.1948). S......