Durkin v. Mercer Water Co.

Decision Date02 June 1953
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 257.
PartiesDURKIN, Secretary of Labor v. MERCER WATER CO. et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Ernest N. Votaw, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Lee C. McCandless, Butler, Pa., for defendant.

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the court on petition of the Secretary of Labor to enjoin defendants from violating Sections 15 (a) (2) and 15(a) (5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U. S.C.A. § 201 et seq.

The issues posed are:

1. Whether salaried employees of the Mercer Water Company and the Mercer Gas, Light & Fuel Company, at their joint place of business within the City of Mercer, whose work involves clerical duties for both concerns, the filtration, sterilization and purification of water, including the installation and repair of meters and meter reading and the operation and maintenance of water lines and systems, and the receipt, storage and distribution of gas, both to industrial users who use such gas and water in the production of goods for commerce, are engaged "in commerce" or in "the production of goods for commerce" within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

2. Whether the Mercer Water Company and the Mercer Gas, Light & Fuel Company are retail or service establishments within the meaning of Section 13(a) (2) of the Act.

3. Whether an injunction should issue.

Employees Campbell and Nelson worked as bookkeepers in which capacity they at various times posted accounts receivable and accounts payable for both Mercer Water Company and Mercer Gas, Light & Fuel Company and sent out bills to consumers.

Employees Nickum, Campbell, and Yeager were employed to install meters, read meters, repair lines, and maintain gas and water distribution lines; and maintain, operate, and repair water pumps and pumping stations; and to help in both phases of this work.

The gas purchased by the Mercer Walker Manufacturing Company from the defendant gas company is used in various furnaces in forging, preheat work, annealing, and heat treating in the manufacture of products, 90% of which regularly and recurrently moves in interstate commerce.

The products of the defendants' enterprises are also purchased by Reznor Manufacturing Company and are used in the actual manufacture of goods by the Reznor firm, which goods move regularly and recurrently in interstate commerce.

By its terms, the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to all employees "engaged in commerce".

This does not require the employee to be directly engaged in commerce, nor does it require the employee to be engaged even in the production of an article which itself becomes the subject of commerce or transportation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Chambers Construction Company v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 5, 1956
    ...v. McGrady Const. Co., 3 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 932, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 785, 67 S.Ct. 298, 91 L.Ed. 673; Durkin v. Mercer Water Co., D.C.W.D.Pa.1953, 112 F.Supp. 656, affirmed per curiam, Mitchell v. Mercer Water Co., 3 Cir., 208 F.2d Appellants complain of the trial court's action in......
  • Herman v. Fashion Headquarters, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 5, 1998
    ...of the evidence.'" Mitchell v. Mormando Bros. Co., Inc., 134 F.Supp. 707, 709 (S.D.N.Y.1955) (quoting Durkin v. Mercer Water Co., 112 F.Supp. 656, 658 (D.Pa.1953), aff'd sub nom. Mitchell v. Mercer Water Co., 208 F.2d 900 (3d Similarly, there is authority that the Jackson Dairy test is modi......
  • Mitchell v. Chambers Const. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • July 8, 1954
    ...S.Ct. 568; Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 65 S.Ct. 165, 89 L.Ed. 118; Walling v. Amidon, 10 Cir., 153 F.2d 159; Durkin v. Mercer Water Co., D.C., 112 F.Supp. 656, affirming Mitchell v. Mercer Water Co., 3 Cir., 208 F.2d 900. We also know that workmen engaged in repairing, replacing,......
  • Wirtz v. FM Sloan, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 13, 1969
    ...368 U.S. 952, 82 S.Ct. 394, 7 L.Ed.2d 386 (1962); Mitchell v. Mercer Water Co., 208 F.2d 900 (3 Cir. 1953), aff'g Durkin v. Mercer Water Co., D. C., 112 F.Supp. 656. In deciding whether the employees of Sloan are covered by the Act, the critical issue is whether the fact that the gas is fir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT