Lynch v. Embry-Riddle Co.

• Decision Date: 27 December 1945
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 967-M.
• Citation: 63 F. Supp. 992
• Parties: LYNCH et al. v. EMBRY-RIDDLE CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

63 F. Supp. 992

LYNCH et al. v. EMBRY-RIDDLE CO.

Civ. No. 967-M.

District Court, S. D. Florida, Miami Division.

December 27, 1945.

Robert M. Thomson, of Miami, Fla., and Russell M. Yates, of Miami Beach, Fla., for plaintiffs.

McKay, Dixon & DeJarnette, of Miami, Fla., for defendant.

HOLLAND, District Judge.

This complaint was filed by R. O. Lynch and certain other named plaintiffs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Sections 6, 7 and 16, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206, 207 and 216. From time to time other plaintiffs were allowed to intervene. The defendant has answered. Testimony has been taken on the question of liability. On this issue the case has been argued and taken under advisement.

Findings of Fact

1. The defendant, for the period from July 1, 1942, to December 31, 1943, was a Florida corporation, with places of business in Dade County and other places in the State of Florida. Among these places of business was one at N. W. 27th Avenue and 32nd Street in the City of Miami, Florida. This is referred to in the record variously as the old Fritz Hotel, the Tech School and the Engine Overhaul. Another was located at Northwest 8th Avenue and 20th Street in Miami, and is referred to sometimes as the Aircraft Overhaul, or just 20th Street.

2. The plaintiffs (with the exception of the plaintiff Snow) were employed by the defendant either in Engine Overhaul or Aircraft Overhaul. Snow was an accountant in the general office of the defendant. The plaintiffs are suing for overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

3. During the period indicated in Finding No. 1 the defendant operated several flying schools where instruction was given to air cadets as a part of the military training program. However, none of the plaintiffs (except possibly Snow) were connected with this activity of the defendant, and the Court is, as to the other plaintiffs, who are numerous, not concerned with the school activities in this suit.

4. During the period indicated, the defendant operated at Engine Overhaul a machine shop in which aircraft engines and their component parts, such as carburetors and propellers, were overhauled and repaired. The exact number of engines is not disclosed by the evidence, but it was somewhere close to 4000 engines. Of this number, about 15 were overhauled for private persons, other than the defendant, and some were owned by the defendant and used by it in its flying schools. The vast majority, however, were the property of the United States or its departments or agencies. One belonged to Rubber Development Corporation, a Federal corporation wholly owned by the Government.

5. At Aircraft Overhaul similarly owned airplane wings, fuselages, and tail assemblies were worked on by the defendant in a shop equipped for this work.

6. As to the privately owned planes and component parts thereof, the evidence shows that all of them were delivered to the defendant in Dade County, Florida, for overhaul, that the work was done in Dade County, and that delivery was made of the overhauled plane or part to the owner in Dade County, Florida. Of the new parts and material used by the defendant in this work, some was purchased by the defendant from manufacturers or dealers outside the State, and some was purchased from dealers within the State. No sales or planes or components thereof, or new parts, are shown to have been made by the defendant.

7. The procedure for the overhaul of the Army planes, engines or other components is fully outlined by the evidence.

(a) On July 21, 1942, the Army Air Force established a sub-depot, under the command of Captain Francis P. Bacon, upon the grounds of the defendant's place of business.

(b) To this sub-depot various Army Airfields or Training Commands in the southeastern area of the United States shipped planes, engines, wings or other component parts in need of overhaul. Various methods of transportation were used. In all cases the consignor would be the Army Air Forces or some detachment thereof, and the consignee would be the sub-depot of the Army Air Force.

(c) This Air Force sub-depot maintained two stockrooms for storage or parts, and two warehouses or storerooms for storage of engines and other components. When aircraft components were received by the sub-depot, they were taken off the Army accountability records of the shipping detachment, and went on the accountability records of the sub-depot.

(d) In most instances these new parts were obtained by the sub-depot through the regular procurement channels of the Army. It is probable that most of the parts were manufactured outside the State of Florida.

(e) In some instances (described by Captain Bacon as a "limited extent", and by others as "rare" or "very small") new parts were supplied by the defendant in accordance with procedure outlined in a written memorandum issued by Captain Bacon. This procedure was applicable only in an emergency, such as the inability to obtain the part through Air Force channels, and required that the parts so procured should be turned in by the defendant to the Air Force stockroom and reissued, as hereafter described, to the defendant in the same manner as parts procured through Air Force channels. The defendant was reimbursed for such parts at cost plus a handling charge. Before the defendant was permitted to procure parts in this fashion, it had to receive specific written authority so to do from the commanding officer of the sub-depot.

(f) When a plane, engine or other aircraft component was proposed to be overhauled, the defendant made a preliminary inspection thereof and submitted a proposal showing the number of hours of work involved, and the price for the work. Sometimes these proposals were accepted by the Air Force, but frequently they were rejected. If the proposal was rejected, the component was returned to the sub-depot.

(g) If the proposal was accepted the defendant received a "work order" on an Army form, describing the work to be done. The defendant also gave the sub-depot a receipt (also on Army form) for the article to be overhauled. The plane component was then disassembled and inspected by both inspectors for the defendant and for the Army.

(h) Parts found to be usable were tagged with an Army form indicating this fact. Parts found to be non-usable were tagged with an Army form indicating this fact and returned by the defendant to the sub-depot, which gave the defendant an Army form receipt therefor. If new parts were needed, such parts were issued to the defendant by the sub-depot, and receipted for by the defendant on an Army form. If a whole new unit had to be replaced by a later model, the old one was turned into the sub-depot and a new one issued by it, the transaction being recorded on still another Army form. All work was conducted under the inspection of Civil Service employees of the Army.

(i) After the necessary overhaul had been made and the work finally inspected and approved by the Civil Service employees of the Army mentioned above, it was returned to the Army sub-depot which issued a receipt to the defendant for the overhauled article.

(j) The defendant was not equipped to perform some of the operations which were necessary upon the airplane components to be overhauled, and in such instances the Army sub-depot delivered the articles to be overhauled in the way in which the defendant could not do so to other machine shops having the facilities to do the work, which in turn by the same procedure followed by the defendant, returned the overhauled articles to the Army sub-depot.

8. The plane engine or other component was not usually returned to the same airfield or training command which had shipped it to the Army sub-depot in Miami. Such overhauled components were shipped by the sub-depot as consignor to whatever point which might requisition such article through the usual Army airforce channels.

9. In many cases the Army paper work authorizing the transfer of the article to be overhauled would pass from an airfield in the State of Florida to the Army command at Warner-Robbins Field in Georgia, and from there to...