Mitchell v. Adams

• Decision Date: 03 March 1955
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1164.
• Citation: 129 F. Supp. 377
• Parties: James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. Ralph ADAMS, doing business as Macon Shirt Company, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia

129 F. Supp. 377

James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. Ralph ADAMS, doing business as Macon Shirt Company, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 1164.

United States District Court, M. D. Georgia, Macon Division.

March 3, 1955.

Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff.

C. Baxter Jones, Macon, Ga., for defendant.

BOOTLE, District Judge.

This is an action by the Secretary of Labor seeking an injunction against Ralph Adams, doing business as Macon Shirt Company, for alleged violations of the minimum wage, overtime compensation, record-keeping and the shipping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. At a pretrial conference it was agreed that the only issues in controversy concerned whether the defendant violated the monetary, record-keeping and shipping provisions of the Act in question, and whether or not an injunction should be granted.

The case involves three groups of employees, the sewing room employees, the office employees and the Belo contract employees. This memorandum opinion will deal with them in the order named.

Sewing Room Employees

The complaint here is that some of these employees were paid less than 75¢ per hour and that some of them were not compensated for overtime hours at rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rate.

The defendant propounded Interrogatory No. 1 as follows:

"State the name and job classification of each and every employee of defendant with respect to whom it is contended that during the period since November 18, 1951 the defendant repeatedly has violated, and is violating, the provisions of Sections 6 and 15(a) (2) of the Act by paying to such employee wages at rates of pay less than 75¢ per hour."

To this interrogatory the defendant replied substantially as follows: The scheduled hours of work in sewing room were from 8:00 a. m. to 12:00 noon, and from 12:45 p. m. to 4:45 p. m., five days a week for a total of 40 hours a week; that all employees in this department were paid on a piece rate basis; that the electric power feeding the sewing machines was turned on before 8:00 a. m. and was left on during the lunch period between 12:00 noon and 12:45 p. m.; that "Many of the employees in the sewing room habitually commenced working when they arrived at the establishment which varied from 10 to 15 minutes of 8:00 a. m. and would work a portion of their lunch period, usually returning to work before 12:45 p. m., some as early as 12:25 p. m."; that plaintiff did not have information sufficient to answer the interrogatory with desired specificity, but stated that substantially all of the sewing room employees, at one time or another, engaged in such "off-the-clock" work; that this practice was one of long standing and from ¼ to 1/3 of the employees, different ones at different times, were constantly engaged in such practice, and concluded with the statement: "Among those so engaged were Shirley F. Brown, Selma R. Brown, Elizabeth Davis, Ida B. Godfrey, Myrtice Howard, Louise Stanley and Lizzie Ward, but as heretofore stated the practice pertained to many more employees in the sewing room department."

By Interrogatory No. 3 defendant inquired specifically whether plaintiff contended that any employee was paid less than 75¢ per hour and worked longer than 40 hours without being compensated for overtime as required by the Act. The plaintiff replied that many of the sewing room employees, by reason of the practice of working off-the-clock, would work in excess of 40 hours a week, and were paid the straight time rate only for the number of recorded hours.

With respect to the 75¢ minimum rate plaintiff contends that there was a violation in those cases, if any, where the employee was compensated at the minimum rate, since they were paid at the minimum rate for only 8 hours, and that with respect to overtime employment there was a violation even if the piece rate compensation was substantially more than the minimum hourly rate.

The seven employees specifically named by plaintiff in answer to the above mentioned interrogatory were in court in response to plaintiff's subpoenas. Lizzie Ward, one of the seven, was not used as a witness and the only testimony about her was from Selma Brown, who testified to the effect that Lizzie Ward had worked some off-the-clock. The other six sewing room employees testified in substance as follows:

Louise Stanley on direct testified that she usually gets to work 5 or 10 minutes before 8:00 a. m. and starts to work; most of them begin before 8:00 a. m.; in repair work they sometimes begin before 12:45; as far as she knew this off-the-clock work had been going on for 8 years; the supervisors had always told them not to do it; some employees had said the supervisors tried to stop it. This work stopped after July, 1954. (The second visit of the Investigator, after his first visit in November, 1953.)

On cross she testified that the warning bell rings at 7:55 a. m. and 12:40 p. m. In the morning she usually arrives at warning bell time; some employees get there after warning bell time; some employees do their own sewing on company machines. The reason she said others were working when she arrived is because she just saw them at their machines. She goes to lunch with her husband, who works at a nearby plant, and it usually takes them the full 45-minute lunch period. She is a high wage rate employee making much more than the 75¢ minimum hourly rate.

Elizabeth Davis on direct testified that she worked in the sewing room from September, 1944 to April, 1954; is off now because of no work; when she didn't make the "dozens" they caught up her pay, but she usually made more than 75¢ per hour; she came to work by bus, which usually got there 15 or 20 minutes before 8:00; she started to work "not usually" before 8:00; she lunched at lunchroom in the building and got back to sewing room about 12:30 or 12:25 and sometimes talked, sometimes repaired and sometimes did regular work; some brought their own personal work with them.

On cross she testified that she came to work by bus and got there most of the time after the warning bell; rarely before 8:00 a. m. and sometimes did repairs; she was usually back in the sewing room by 12:30 and started to work just occasionally before 12:45.

Shirley Brown on direct testified that she worked two months in the fall of 1953; was paid "make-up" each week; left home about 7:40; was usually 8:00 before she got there; would see some working there 20 or 25 minutes; saw no efforts to stop off-the-clock work, but there could have been such efforts; didn't know whether the Supervisors ever saw her work off-the-clock.

On cross she testified that she got there most of the time just at the bell; her off-the-clock work would amount to not more than 20 minutes in all during the time she worked there.

Ida Godfrey on direct testified she worked there since June 28, 1947; got to work sometimes 5, sometimes 10 minutes before 8:00; sometimes would crochet, talk, do repairs or start to work; she started to work "just occasionally" before 8:00 and "just occasionally" before 12:45; others could have been doing their own work; has done a little of her own sewing on her grandson's shirts; her estimate is that her off-the-clock work would not exceed an hour in any week — "not very much".

On cross she testified that she "'spects" it has amounted to an hour in a whole week, but not often; she was stopped from work several times and was repeatedly told not to do it, but was "just stubborn"; at times she worked before 8:00 a. m. and during lunch period by request, for which she received compensation; she made much more than 75¢ an hour.

Myrtice Howard on direct testified that she worked there since June, 1944; was dropped off at plant at various times between 7:30 and 7:45; would get up material and get straightened out before 8:00 a. m.; would be there at warning bell; the company had let her work before 8:00 a. m. when she was getting off early in the afternoons to visit the doctor.

On cross she testified that she made production; did not work over eight hours in a day or overtime in any week without being credited and paid for it.

Selma Brown on direct testified that she came by bus and got there about 7:45 or 7:50 a. m.; sometimes would clean up machine or start sewing; would finish lunch by 12:30 and would then work or talk; could not estimate whether or not this off-the-clock work would amount to as much as "an hour" during the week; the floor lady told her not to work; the men told her not to work; about June of this year this off-the-clock work stopped; we knew it was wrong, the Investigator was not there when it stopped.

On cross she testified that she knew the company did not want them to work; she would not take the break period; knew that if she did she would drink a Coca-Cola.

The defendant's testimony and that of Mr. Usina, his General Manager, and Mr. Clay, his Production Manager, showed that the defendant was opposed to and repeatedly forbade any off-the-clock work. This plant manufactures a high quality shirt and constant supervision of employees was necessary and desired. The employer desired his employees to be free from fatigue and provided 10 minute rest periods, both morning and afternoon, and all employees were urged to take advantage of these rest periods. The piece rates were set up so as to enable the employees to earn, with their production bonuses, approximately twice the 75¢ minimum.

These sewing room employees numbered from a very few in slack times to around 200 or more in busy times. With 200 machines and 200 women in one room, with many employees having the freedom of the entire area upon arrival before 8:00 a. m., there was likely a lot of visiting and considerable talking. It is unlikely that anyone knew exactly what the others were doing, unless special attention was...