Dollar v. Caddo River Lumber Co., 205.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 205.,205. |
| Parties | DOLLAR v. CADDO RIVER LUMBER CO. (WALTERS, Intervenor). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Osro Cobb, of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff.
McRae & Tompkins, of Prescott, Ark., for defendant.
From the testimony in this case the court finds the following facts:
(1) That the defendant, Caddo River Lumber Company, is and was during the times mentioned in the complaint and intervention engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.
(2) That the plaintiff, W. A. Dollar, was employed by the Caddo River Lumber Company in Scott County, Arkansas, from October 24, 1938, to September 30, 1940, and that during all of said employment he was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
(3) That the complaint of the plaintiff and intervention of intervenor are based upon Section 7 and Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act and seek to recover compensation for alleged overtime at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which they were employed.
(4) That the court has jurisdiction of this cause.
(5) That the intervenor, G. W. Walters, was employed by the defendant, in Scott County, Arkansas, between the dates of October 28, 1938, and September 6, 1940.
(6) That from the week ending November 12, 1938, to the week ending May 27, 1939, the intervenor, G. W. Walters, was not engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce; that during this time he was engaged in the construction of a saw mill being erected by the defendant; that saw mill was constructed to replace a saw mill that had been destroyed by fire, and after its construction it was used in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce; that the said intervenor during the time he worked on the construction of the saw mill worked longer than the maximum hours per week as provided in Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, but was not engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce during any of the time mentioned in this paragraph.
(7) That from the week ending June 3, 1939, to the week ending August 26, 1939, the intervenor, G. W. Walters, was working as a night watchman in and around the saw mill and manufacturing plant of the defendant and that during said time was engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce, but he has been paid for this period of time all overtime as provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and no claim is made by him for overtime between these dates.
(8) That from the week ending September 2, 1939, to the week ending September 7, 1940, the intervenor was engaged as a member of the train crew and as a tong-hooker and during this time was engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce; that he has been paid for all overtime while engaged as a member of the train crew at a rate of one and a half times the regular rate at which he was employed; that most of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Long & Turner Const. Co.
...37 S. Ct. 268; Damon v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 446; Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co., 39 F. Supp. 275; Dollar v. Caddo River Lumber Co., 43 F. Supp. 822; Barbe v. Cummins Construction Co., (D.C. Md.) 49 F. Supp. 168. (7) Appellant's claim under Executive Order 9240. Perkins......
-
Walling v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co.
...company in travel from the portal of the mine to their usual place of work in the mine. It adds nothing new. In Dollar v. Caddo River Lumber Co., D.C., 43 F.Supp. 822, the court specifically held that there was nothing due the intervenor for overtime under the following circumstances: "* * ......
-
Johnson v. Rgis Inventory Specialists
...1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946) (citing Walling v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., 49 F.Supp. 846, 885 (W.D.La.1943); Dollar v. Caddo River Lumber Co., 43 F.Supp. 822, 823 (W.D.Ark.1941)); Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co., 321 U.S. at 599, 64 S.Ct. 698 (citing Walling, 49 F.Supp. at 885; Bulot v. Free-por......
-
Adams v. Long
...eventually used, when completed, for purely intrastate production. [Muldowney v. Seaburg Elevator Co., 39 F.Supp. 275; Dollar v. Caddo River Lumber Co., 43 F.Supp. 822; Barbe v. Cummins Const. Co., 49 F.Supp. In applying the Federal Employer's Liability Act, the courts have distinguished ca......