Cabunac v. National Terminals Corporation
Decision Date | 28 January 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 8359.,8359. |
Citation | 139 F.2d 853 |
Parties | CABUNAC et al. v. NATIONAL TERMINALS CORPORATION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
J. G. Hardgrove and Leon F. Foley, both of Milwaukee, Wis. (Miller, Mack & Fairchild, of Milwaukee, Wis., of counsel), for appellant.
A. W. Richter, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.
Before MAJOR, KERNER, and MINTON, Circuit Judges.
This is an action brought under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), for overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney fees.
Plaintiffs-appellees during the times in question were all members of Local 815, International Longshoremen's Association, their certified collective bargaining agent, and were employed on an hourly basis by the defendant-appellant as warehousemen and stevedores. Defendant, a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in Wisconsin, was engaged in the business of handling and storing merchandise transported by ships upon the Great Lakes. It is conceded that these activities were in interstate commerce.
Plaintiffs claim that they failed to receive the full amount of overtime compensation required to be paid them by Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 207. Subsection (a) of that Section requires employers engaged in or producing goods for interstate commerce to pay overtime at the rate of one and one-half times the "regular rate" of pay for all hours worked per week in excess of 44 during the first year, 42 during the second year, and 40 during the third year after the effective date of the Act.
Defendant does not deny that the plaintiffs worked longer than those maximum hours per week but claims exemption under subsection (b) of Section 7 which reads as follows:
Six contracts between the union and the defendant covered the period between the effective date of the Act and the bringing of this action on December 22, 1941. Three contracts covered stevedoring and three warehouse employment. In only two of the stevedoring contracts was there any reference to the one thousand hour provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act quoted above. Since the provisions of these two contracts are similar, only one need be set forth. The stevedoring contract dated April 15, 1940, read as follows:
It will be noted that instead of providing for "any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Battaglia v. General Motors Corporation
...of the Fair Labor Standards Act beginning with what has been held to be its effective date, October 24, 1938. Cabunac v. National Terminals Corp., 7 Cir., 139 F.2d 853. 8 In this respect, cases like Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450, 17 L.Ed. 805 — relied upon by appellants — w......
-
92 Le 1502 Bay Ridge Operating Co v. Aaron Huron Stevedoring Corporation v. Blue
...labor rather than an overtime premium.28 Such payments enter into the determination of the regular rate of pay. See Cabunac v. National Terminals Corp., 7 Cir., 139 F.2d 853. The trial court seemed to assume that if the contract overtime rate were a shift differential, the employee who work......
-
Bell v. Iowa Turkey Growers Co-Op.
...F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1995) (same); Thomas v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 39 F.3d 370, 372 (D.C.Cir.1994) (same)); Cabunac v. Nat'l Terminals Corp., 139 F.2d 853, 854-55 (7th Cir.1944) (same); 29 C.F.R. § 778.207(b). WLF does not dispute that the FLSA mandates inclusion of the shift differential ......
-
Ferrer v. Waterman SS Corporation
...356. See also International Longshoremen's Association v. National Terminal Corp. D.C., 50 F.Supp. 26, affirmed in Cabunac v. National Terminal Corp., 7 Cir., 139 F.2d 853. "The definition of overtime premium thus becomes crucial in determining the regular rate of pay. We need not pause to ......