Goldberg v. Ed's Shopworth Supermarket, Inc., Civ. A. No. 8738.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1963
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 8738.
• Citation: 214 F. Supp. 781
• Parties: Arthur J. GOLDBERG, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. ED'S SHOPWORTH SUPERMARKET, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

214 F. Supp. 781

Arthur J. GOLDBERG, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. ED'S SHOPWORTH SUPERMARKET, INC.

Civ. A. No. 8738.

United States District Court W. D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

March 5, 1963.

Charles Donahue, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Earl Street, and Truett E. Bean, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.

James B. Wells, Bossier City, La., for defendant.

BEN C. DAWKINS, Jr., Chief Judge.

The Secretary of Labor brings this suit to enjoin defendant from violating certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. Plaintiff contends that defendant has paid certain employees at wages less than $1.00 per hour as required by Sections 6 and 15(a) (2) of the Act and that defendant has also failed to maintain certain records in accordance with Section 11(c) and 15(a) (5) of the Act.

All essential facts have been stipulated, and the matter has been submitted for decision on its merits.

Defendant's grocery establishment (two large retail stores) has had an annual volume in excess of $1,000,000 for the three different twelve-month periods ending prior to July 1, 1961, October 1, 1961, and January 1, 1962, but received less than $250,000 in annual volume in each of the three periods in direct shipments from suppliers located outside the State. Defendant received, however, from Salley Grocery Company, Inc., a Louisiana concern, goods valued greatly in excess of $250,000 which had traveled in interstate commerce.

Defendant contends that it is not subject to the Act, within the meaning of Section 3(s) (1), 29 U.S.C. § 203(s) (1),¹ as amended in 1961, which requires that "such enterprise purchases or receives goods for resale that move or have moved across State lines (not in deliveries from the reselling establishment) which amount in total annual volume to $250,000 or more." (Emphasis added.) It argues that the goods received from Salley are deliveries from a reselling establishment and are not to be considered in determining if the minimum of $250,000 of goods which have traveled in interstate commerce has been met.

Senate Report 145 of the 87th Congress stated:

"It will be noted that the application of the test relating to purchases and receipts of goods for resale, where such goods move or have moved across State lines, is not based on any interstate movement of such goods from the reselling establishment in its deliveries to customers. The interstate movement referred to is, rather that movement by which such goods have been made available for sales of the reselling establishment, as where a retail enterprise located in one State purchases or receives goods for resale to its customers and these goods move or have moved in commerce from other States." (Emphasis added.)²

Contained in the same Senate Report was the additional explanation of the test to be used in determining if an establishment meets the economic test:

"* * * Even if engaged in commerce, a retail or service enterprise would be covered only if it has purchased or received goods for resale that move or have moved across State lines which amount in total annual nual volume to $250,000 or more. This provision on inflow volume applies to employees employed by retail or service enterprises (who are in the final stages of the flow of interstate commerce from the producer or manufacturer to the ultimate consumer) a principle essentially the same as that embodied in the phrase `production for commerce' as applied to employees of manufacturing concerns (who are the initial stage of the flow of interstate commerce). Under the inflow limitation on coverage contained in the committee bill, goods amounting to $250,000 a year must be purchased or received for resale and have moved across State lines at some stage in the flow of commerce to the retailer.

"In sum, coverage under the act at the present time is based on engagement in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. In view of the specific exemption for retail and service establishments, however, the courts have not fully explored the actual bounds of this concept as applied in these fields. Under the bill the specific exemption for retail and service establishments is substantially reduced although it still excludes firms and establishments doing less than specific volumes of business, and still excludes enterprises that do not purchase or receive goods for resale which move or have moved across State lines amounting in total volume to $250,000 or more." Emphasis added.)³

Thus, the economic test provided by Congress is the purchase or receipt by an enterprise of goods that move or have moved across State lines. Excluded from the test are goods sold by this same establishment that are...