Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 5015.
Decision Date | 02 February 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 5015.,5015. |
Citation | 133 F.2d 52 |
Parties | DAVIS et al. v. GOODMAN LUMBER CO., Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Edwin C. Gregory, Sr., of Salisbury, N. C. (Edwin C. Gregory, Jr., of Salisbury, N. C., on the brief), for appellants.
Stahle Linn, of Salisbury, N. C. (J. Giles Hudson, of Salisbury, N. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
The question in this case is whether Goodman Lumber Company, a North Carolina corporation, is subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219, with respect to its manufacturing business which is of small extent in comparison with the retail business in lumber in which it is chiefly engaged.
The complainant's employees brought suit to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation in divers amounts alleged to be due under the Act for services rendered to the corporation between January 1, 1939 and March 24, 1941 in the purchase and sale of lumber and in the production of rollers for mill machinery intended to be shipped in interstate commerce. During the years 1939 and 1940 the gross sales of lumber by the corporation were $264,529 and $345,999 respectively, of which by far the greater part were sales at retail within the State. But, in addition, the defendant corporation participated to a limited extent in the manufacture of rollers for cotton mills. The rollers consisted of metal shafts one and a half inches in diameter and three and a half to five feet long with wood glued on each side and metal pulley wheels at each end. The shafts were made by iron workers or foundries and sent to the Goodman Company so that the wooden attachments might be processed and glued to the shafts and then returned to the foundries where the wood was lathed and the pulley wheels attached. The Goodman Company performed less than ten per cent of the manufacturing process. The proceeds of this business done by the Goodman Company in 1940 and 1941 amounted approximately to $11,750 and $8,240 respectively, and of the rollers handled by the Goodman Company twenty-five per cent were sold and shipped by the foundries outside the State. The evidence indicates that two workmen employed by the Goodman Company were continually engaged in this activity under the supervision of a foreman during the period in question.
Upon this state of facts the District Court was of the opinion that, as the Goodman Company was engaged primarily in the retail business of selling lumber in North Carolina, it was not engaged in commerce within the terms of the Act, and also that the employees were excluded from the wage and hour requirements contained in §§ 6 and 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206 and 207, by the exemption provisions of § 13 (a) (2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a) (2). Insofar as the employees engaged in the retail business of the defendant were concerned, this conclusion was obviously correct, for the exemption excludes from the wage and hour provisions of the Act "any employee engaged in any retail or service establishment the greater part of whose selling or servicing is in intrastate commerce". See White Motor Co. v. Littleton, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 92. But, in our opinion, it was error to hold that the manufacturing business of the defendant was so negligible and unimportant as to escape altogether from the requirements of the Act. It is true that, as compared with the proceeds of the retail sales, the return from the roller business was small. But it was nevertheless substantial; and the manufacturing operations were continuous for two years or more and required the services of at least two workers and a foreman. There are intimations in the evidence that other employees, who handled the large amount of lumber that passed through the plant, may have had some incidental contact with the material ultimately fashioned and applied to the rollers, but so far as we can ascertain from the evidence before us their services seem to have been too unsubstantial and too remote from the manufacturing process to form a part of it. As to them we make no finding, but confine our determination to the holding that the workers actually engaged in processing the wood and affixing it to the cores of the rollers were subject to the wage and hour provisions of the Act. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. ___. Cf. Walling v. Peoples Packing Co., Inc., 10 Cir., 132 F.2d 236.
Although the amount of manufacturing done by the defendant corporation was small and only twenty-five per cent of the goods...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mitchell v. Telephone Answering Service, Inc.
...6 Cir., 140 F.2d 445, 448; Schmidt v. Peoples Tele. Union, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 13; Bracey v. Luray, 4 Cir., 138 F.2d 8, 11; Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 4 Cir., 133 F.2d 52; Strand v. Garden Valley Tele. Co., D.C., 51 F.Supp. 898; McKeown v. Southern Calif. Freight Forwarders, D.C., 52 F.Supp.......
-
Agnew v. Johnson
... ... 125; Walling v ... Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564; Super-Cold ... Southwest Co. v. McBride, ... is the controlling feature. Davis v. Goodman Rubber ... Co., 133 F.2d 52; Snavely v ... of the employer's business. Davis v. Goodman Lumber ... Co., 133 F.2d 52; Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button ... ...
-
New Mexico Public Service Co. v. Engel
...6 Cir., 140 F.2d 445, 448; Schmidt v. Peoples Tele. Union, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 13; Bracey v. Luray, 4 Cir., 138 F.2d 8, 11; Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 4 Cir., 133 F.2d 52; Strand v. Garden Valley Tele. Co., D.C., 51 F.Supp. 898; McKeown v. Southern Calif. Freight Forwarders, D.C., 52 F.Supp.......
-
Franz v. Delico Meat Products Co.
...devoted to the wholesale business of defendant and what to the retail. [Supercold Southwest Co. v. McBride, 124 F.2d 90, 92; David v. Goodman Lbr. Co., 133 F.2d 52; Guess v. Montague, supra, l. c. 504; Walling Supply Co., supra, l. c. 339.] In proving what portion of an employee's time was ......
-
29 C.F.R. § 776.3 Persons Engaging In Both Covered and Noncovered Activities
...145 F. 2d 636 (C.A. 10); Sun Pub. Co. v. Walling, 140 F. 2d 445 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 322 U.S. 728; Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 133 F. 2d 52 (C.A....
-
29 C.F.R. § 776.3 Persons Engaging In Both Covered and Noncovered Activities
...145 F. 2d 636 (C.A. 10); Sun Pub. Co. v. Walling, 140 F. 2d 445 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 322 U.S. 728; Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 133 F. 2d 52 (C.A....
-
29 C.F.R. § 779.308 Employed Within Scope of Exempt Business
...in the work of the exempt establishment itself in activities within the scope of its exempt business. (See Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 133 F. 2d 52 (CA-4) (holding section 13(a)(2) exemption inapplicable to employees working in manufacturing phase of employer's retail establishment); Wessl......
-
29 C.F.R. § 779.308 Employed Within Scope of Exempt Business
...in the work of the exempt establishment itself in activities within the scope of its exempt business. (See Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 133 F. 2d 52 (CA-4) (holding section 13(a)(2) exemption inapplicable to employees working in manufacturing phase of employer's retail establishment); Wessl......