Hall v. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co., 156 Civil.
| Decision Date | 18 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 156 Civil.,156 Civil. |
| Parties | HALL et al. v. WARREN-BRADSHAW DRILLING CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Scarborough, Yates & Scarborough, of Abilene, Tex., for plaintiffs.
Settle, Monnet & Clammer, of Tulsa, Okl., and Underwood, Johnson, Dooley & Wilson, of Amarillo, Tex., for defendant.
The eight plaintiffs here sue the defendant for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title 29, U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. They constituted a rotary drilling crew in drilling oil wells in the Panhandle Oil Field of Texas, or, as defendant put it, holes in the ground, for the defendant. All of them drew rather good wages ranging from around $6.50 to $7 and up to as high as $11 per day for their work. As a practical matter, in the drilling of these oil wells, the defendant used rotary rigs for drilling the wells down to, or near to, the pay sand. At that juncture, the rotary crews would cement the casing at or near the expected pay sand, and then would withdraw all the rotary machinery and another crew would move in and complete the well, bring it in, or demonstrate it was a dry hole, with cable tools. In other words, plaintiffs here did not do the whole job, but it was finished by the cable tools crew. That is true with respect to every well on which the plaintiffs worked that is involved in this suit. As far as the record shows, all of the wells upon which plaintiffs worked were producers of oil or gas in paying quantities. The defendant was not the owner of any of the leases worked upon. It was simply under contract for such owners to drill the wells. It had nothing whatever to do with the wells, or holes in the ground, other than above indicated. When it finished such work, it would move to another location and commence another well, and so on. There were around thirty wells drilled by it upon which plaintiffs worked.
Defendant's first position is that plaintiffs were employed by it as a contract driller, and performing such labor for it did not come under the terms of the Act. In other words, that because of defendant's position as an independent contractor, it was not engaged in interstate commerce in so working these men and the law was not applicable to it, etc. I cannot agree with that position. I am not able to see how the stated capacity in which the employer was engaged can affect the question as to whether these plaintiffs were engaged in producing goods for commerce under the Act. As relates to the applicability of the law, I am not able to distinguish between a contractor performing the work, and the owner of the lease himself performing it. It is the character of work done and engaged in by these plaintiffs for defendant that determines whether they come under the terms of the Act, and whether its provisions as to maximum hours and minimum wages apply. I hold against the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lorenzetti v. American Trust Co.
...is the test. Fleming v. American Stores Co., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 511; Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 172; Hall v. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co., D.C., 40 F.Supp. 272; Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 202; Fleming v. A. B. Kirschbaum Co., 3 Cir., 124 F.2d 567; Fleming v. A......
-
Corbett v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp.
...other than above indicated. When it finished such work, it would move to another location and commence another well, and so on, * * *' 40 F.Supp. 272. `As a practical matter, in the drilling of these oil wells, the defendant used rotary rigs for drilling the wells down to, or near to, the p......
-
Fleming v. AB Kirschbaum Co., 7733.
...the cases holding that the application of the act is determined by the character of the employee's work is Hall v. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co., D.C. N.D.Tex.1941, 40 F.Supp. 272, and of the cases holding that it is determined by the nature of the employer's business as well as by the chara......
-
Drilling Co v. Hall
...between the states, and in that sense necessary to its existence. 1 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. 2 40 F.Supp. 272. 3 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 4 "Produced' means produced, manufactured, mined, handled, or in any other manner worked on in any State;' 5 The Solicit......