Collins v. Burton-Dixie Corporation

• Decision Date: 15 February 1944
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 351.
• Citation: 53 F. Supp. 821
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: COLLINS v. BURTON-DIXIE CORPORATION.

53 F. Supp. 821

COLLINS v. BURTON-DIXIE CORPORATION.

Civil Action No. 351.

District Court, W. D. South Carolina.

February 15, 1944.

W. K. Charles, of Greenwood, S. C., and Ray Godshall, of Gaffney, S. C., for plaintiff.

Grier, McDonald & Todd, of Greenwood S. C., for defendant.

WYCHE, District Judge.

This action is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., together with an equal additional amount as liquidated damages, amounting approximately to Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), and attorneys' fees.

By consent of the parties the cause was referred to Harvey W. Johnson, Esq., as Special Master, who in response to the order of reference, has filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law in which he concluded that plaintiff had failed to make out his case and recommended that judgment be rendered in favor of the defendant.

The matter is now before me upon plaintiff's objections to the findings of the Master, and defendant's motion to confirm the same, and for judgment accordingly.

The facts are substantially as follows:

The defendant owns and operates a plant at Blacksburg, South Carolina, where it manufactures cotton waste, batting, and until the beginning of the present war, steel bed springs. Its products are sold and transported in interstate commerce, and its employees, therefore, are engaged in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendant acquired the manufacturing plant in June, 1935, and after making some additions to the factory buildings and installing some new machinery and equipment, commenced operations in January, 1936. For some years prior thereto the plaintiff had lived on the premises, occupying a small tenant dwelling near the main factory building, under an arrangement with the former owners. The defendant permitted him to remain on the premises, and to collect such rents as he could from some tenant dwellings for which it had no need, and to cultivate such portion of the seventy acres which it had acquired as was available for farming. The tenant dwellings were in a dilapidated condition, and were torn down by the end of 1937, or the early part of 1938. The plaintiff kept no record of the rents received by him from the houses, or the profits, if any, from his farming operations. From the time the defendant commenced to operate its plant it had an agreement with the plaintiff for the removal of waste. After the removal of the tenant dwellings, and prior to the effective date of the act, the plaintiff requested the defendant for additional employment, and was given the job of Sunday watchman.

From the time defendant began operations and until plaintiff quit, he was employed by the defendant at various times to do odd jobs of one kind or another. After the effective date of the act he was required by defendant to keep his own time for all such work performed by him by punching the clock. He was told not to do any work without specific instructions or authority, and not to do any work for which he did not punch the time clock. All other employees of the defendant were likewise required to punch the clock when they went to work and when they quit.

The defendant kept complete pay roll records of all its employees. The Administrator of the act duly investigated and checked the defendant and made no charges of violations. Wages were paid by the defendant in accordance with the provisions of the law. The plaintiff was paid weekly along with all other employees, receiving his pay checks, showing the hours worked, the applicable rates, deductions for Social Security taxes, insurance and other matters, without objection, complaint or demand for more pay or any other compensation. When he terminated his employment he did not assign as a reason therefor the demands now made the basis of this action. He kept no records of any kind with respect to hours worked for which he now claims he was not paid. Plaintiff was free to come and go at all times and was off the premises at various times.

Plaintiff contends that his employment with defendant from October, 1938, until January, 1942, was on a dual basis, that is, that he performed two different kinds of work throughout this period, and was paid for each upon a different basis. (1) For some of the work he claims he was required to keep his own time by punching the clock, or as he put it, "entitled" to punch the clock, as all other employees were required to do, and did do by direction of the management of the company; for this work he admits he was paid in accordance with the provisions of the act. (2) For maintaining and keeping in proper repair and operation the water works, sprinkler system, boiler and dry valves, and for certain other work, under instructions of the manager, or other officials of defendant, he contends he was not permitted to make a record of the hours worked, that is to say, to punch the clock, and in fact that he was forbidden to do so; that his compensation therefor was the use and occupancy of the small tenant dwelling, together with water, lights and fuel, and such portion of defendant's property as he was...