Holland v. Haile Gold Mines
Decision Date | 23 April 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 288.,288. |
Citation | 44 F. Supp. 641 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | HOLLAND, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, v. HAILE GOLD MINES, Inc. |
George A. Downing, Regional Atty., Department of Labor, and William A. Lowe, Atty., Department of Labor, both of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Donald Russell, of Spartanburg, S. C., D. W. Robinson, Jr., of Columbia, S. C., and R. S. Stewart, of Lancaster, S. C., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, seeks in this action to enjoin defendant, Haile Gold Mines, Inc., from violation of the provisions of Section 15 (a) (1) and (2) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Act of June 25, 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The matter now comes before me upon motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment on the pleadings and affidavits.
For the purpose of the motion the following facts are admitted: Haile Gold Mines, Inc., operates a gold mine near the City of Kershaw, South Carolina. The employees whose wages are involved in this action are engaged in the digging and crushing of rock from which gold is later extracted. After the gold is obtained, it is delivered to the United States Post Office in Kershaw, South Carolina, and there forwarded to the United States Mint at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A United States Treasury check is then issued to the company for the bullion. Defendant operates its gold mine under license issued to it pursuant to the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 337. It sells to no one save the United States Mint, and that at the price fixed by the Government.
Under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and the Regulations issued pursuant thereto, the United States Treasury purchases all of the gold mined in this country, all of the gold scrap, and gold imported from other nations at a price fixed by the Government. Every mine producing gold must have a license which requires all gold to be shipped to a particular mint and prohibits the retention of any substantial amount of the gold by the mine.
It is admitted by the defendant that the employees here involved now receive for their work an amount which is less than they would receive were the Fair Labor Standards Act applicable. Defendant's contention is that its activities are not subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The production of gold is of itself an intrastate activity. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430; National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 1937, 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 1936, 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855, 80 L.Ed. 1160. Plaintiff contends that this intrastate activity is, however, subject to Federal Regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act in that it is the production of goods for interstate commerce. The only "commerce" here involved is the acquisition of the gold by the United States, as to which defendant has no choice under the Gold Reserve Act. No shipment in interstate commerce is present, unless it be the forwarding of the gold from the Post Office at Kershaw, South Carolina, to the Mint at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Even if the acquisition of the gold by the government be deemed a commercial transaction, the interstate aspect, required for Federal regulation, is not present, inasmuch as the transfer of the gold from Kershaw to Philadelphia is pursuant to the orders of the United States Government; as such it would appear to be an administrative act of the government rather than a shipment in commerce by the defendant mining company. Cf. National Labor R. Board v. Idaho-Maryland M. Corp., 9 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 129.
As further bearing upon this point, it has been pointed out that if the Act is deemed to apply to defendant here, then it is by the Act forbidden to do that which under the Gold Reserve Act it is required to do, i. e., send its gold to the government. While in every other instance in which the Court has been asked to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act the employer has the legal choice of complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act and continuing to engage in interstate commerce, or not complying with the Act so long as he does not engage in interstate commerce, in the present case defendant does not have that choice. Under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, 31 U.S.C.A. § 441, it is required to send its gold where the government directs. This does not seem to me to constitute "engaging in interstate commerce" within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Contra Costa County
...of gold bearing ore is not normal commerce. (Cf. Fox v. Summit King Mines (D.Nev.1943) 48 F.Supp. 952, 954, and Holland v. Haile Gold Mines (W.D.S.C.1942) 44 F.Supp. 641, 643, with Fox v. Summit King Mines (9th Cir. 1944) 143 F.2d 926, 928--929; Walling v. Haile Gold Mines (4th Cir. 1943) 1......
-
United States Cartridge Co. v. Powell
...part of the National Defense program, we shall have to adjust our schedule according to the needs of the situation." 5 Holland v. Haile Gold Mines, D. C., 44 F.Supp. 641; Walling v. Haile Gold Mines, Inc., 4 Cir., 136 F.2d 102; Fox v. Summit King Mines, 9 Cir., 143 F.2d 926; St. Johns River......
-
BLACK HAWK CONSOL. MINES CO. v. GALLEGOS
...District Courts were to the effect that they were not sales, but administrative acts of the Government. Holland, Admr. Etc., v. Haile Gold Mines, 1942, 44 F.Supp. 641; Fox v. Summit King Mines, 1943, 48 F.Supp. 952. The legislature might well have been in doubt as to whether such a transact......
-
Fountain v. St. Joseph Water Co.
... ... Peoples ... Packing Co., supra; Holland v. Amoskeag Machine Co., 44 ... F.Supp. 884 ... John ... 605; Moses v. McKesson & Robbins, 43 F.Supp. 528; Holland v. Halle Gold ... Mines, 44 F.Supp. 641; Klotz v. Ippolito, 40 ... F.Supp. 422; Carter ... ...