McKeown v. Southern California Freight Forwarders, 1885 O'C Civil.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 1885 O'C Civil.,1885 O'C Civil. |
| Citation | 49 F. Supp. 543 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | McKEOWN v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FREIGHT FORWARDERS et al. |
Richard S. Buckley and Ray McAllister, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Henry J. Bischoff, of San Diego, Cal., for defendants.
This is an action brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to sec. 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b). The principal work of the plaintiff was that of a checker employed by the defendant. Goods which were unloaded on the platform were checked by the plaintiff and at times, but infrequently, he assisted in placing the goods in a truck which transported them to their destination, or in a bin. The plaintiff clearly does not come under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, as that Commission reached the conclusion that: "section 204(a) (1) and (2) 49 U.S.C.A. § 304(a) (1, 2) is limited to prescribing qualifications and maximum hours of service for those employees * * * whose activities affect the safety of operation". This limitation was approved in an opinion by Mr. Justice Reed, Supreme Court of the United States, in Re United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 60 S.Ct. 1059, 84 L. Ed. 1345. It is clear the activities of the plaintiff did not affect the "safety of operation".
In re Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 62 S.Ct. 1216, 1218, 86 L.Ed. 1682, it was held that a rate clerk performing other incidental duties, none of which were connected with the "safety of operation", was engaged in commerce within the meaning of section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 207, and entitled to the benefits of its overtime provision.
In further elaboration of its views of section 13(b) (1), 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(b) (1), the court declared that this section: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchinson v. William C. Barry
...5 note 6; Anuchick v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., D.C.E.D. Mich., 46 F.Supp. 861, 865; McKeown v. Southern California Freight Forwarders et al., D.C.S.D.Cal. March 31, 1943, 49 F. Supp. 543; Lewis v. Nailling, D.C.W.D. Tenn., 36 F.Supp. 187. Compare the last paragraph of Walling v. J......
-
McDuffie v. Hayes Freight Lines
...of the Commerce Commission and not that of the Administrator of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In McKeown v. Southern California Freight Forwarders, D.C., 49 F. Supp. 543, the court held that the activities of employees consisting chiefly of unloading goods and checking them, did not affect ......
-
Potashnick Local Truck System, Inc. v. Archer
... ... 44, 63 S.Ct. 917, 87 ... L.Ed. 1244; McKeown v. Southern California ... Freight Forwarders, ... ...
-
Foremost Dairies v. Ivey
...as to the manner in which the loading was done. See Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, supra; McKeown v. Southern California Freight Forwarders, D.C.Cal., 49 F.Supp. 543. Barrett was a gas pump attendant. He described his duties as: "I gas up all the trucks and after they were in I woul......
-
Chapter § 2-60 29 CFR § 782.5. Loaders
...U.S. 695; Levinson, 330 U.S. 649; Porter v. Poindexter, 158 F.2d 759 (10th Cir. 1947); McKeown v. Southern Calif. Freight Forwarders, 49 F. Supp. 543 (S.D. Cal. 1943); Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934; Huber & Huber Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 855; Silver Fleet M......
-
29 C.F.R. § 782.5 Loaders
...v. Spector Motor Service,330 U.S. 649; Porter v. Poindexter, 158 F. (2d) 759 (C.A. 10); McKeown v. Southern Calif. Freight Forwarders, 49 F. Supp. 543; Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, affirmed 162 F. (2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 332 U.S. 774......