Mitchell v. Chambers Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 4796.,4796. |
| Citation | 214 F.2d 515 |
| Parties | MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. CHAMBERS CONST. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Bessie Margolin and Morton J. Marks, Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman and Sylvia S. Ellison, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
John U. Loomis, Cheyenne, Wyo., and Max Kier, Lincoln, Neb., for appellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
The appellant brought this action to enjoin the appellee from violating the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 207(a), 211(c) and 215(a) (2, 5). The trial court held the Act inapplicable to the employees of appellee, but that in any event, since the operations had been completed and further work "entirely problematical", there was no cause for injunctive relief. This appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint.
The material facts are that the appellee entered into a contract with the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the construction of a reservoir and chlorinator house, which, when completed would augment the city's water system. In addition to the concrete reservoir and a chlorinator house, the contract called for the construction of a connecting pipe line from existing wells and reservoirs to the new reservoir and through the chlorinator house. At the same time, the city undertook the construction of a pipe line from the new reservoir and chlorinator house to connect with its existing distribution system within the corporate limits. The new reservoir and chlorinator house were located about five and one-half miles from the city in a pasture, no portion of which had ever been connected or used as a part of the city's water system. The reservoir, chlorinator house and connecting lines were completed under the contract in October, 1951. They were not connected with the city's water system until June, 1952, due to the delay in the completion of the line constructed by the city from the reservoir to the point of intake for distribution.
The city furnishes large quantities of water to employers engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce. And, we know that employees engaged in an occupation directly essential to the production of goods for commerce are themselves engaged in the production of goods for commerce. Alstate Const. Co. v. Durkin, 345 U.S. 13, 73 S.Ct. 565; Thomas v. Hempt Bros., 345 U.S. 19, 73 S.Ct. 568; Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 65 S.Ct. 165, 89 L.Ed. 118; Walling v. Amidon, 10 Cir., 153 F.2d 159; Durkin v. Mercer Water Co., D.C., 112 F.Supp. 656, affirming Mitchell v. Mercer Water Co., 3 Cir., 208 F.2d 900. We also know that workmen engaged in repairing, replacing, enlarging or improving an existing interstate facility are covered by the Act as employees engaged in commerce. See Moss v. Gillioz Const. Co., 10 Cir., 206 F. 2d 819, and cases cited. On the other hand, it is equally plain that employees engaged in the original construction of a project or facility not yet dedicated to the channels of commerce or to the production of goods for commerce are not within the coverage of the Act, even though the facility or project, when completed, will be in the channels of interstate commerce or utilized in the production of goods for commerce. The question in each case is governed by the facts. Somewhere between the black and the white are factual shades of gray, and adjudicated cases serve only to add to the catalogue of colors from which we choose a shade to match our own.
The trial court was of the view that the reservoir and chlorinator house constituted entirely new construction, to be used by the city in augmenting its water supply with entirely different connection from the new facility to the distribution system, to be constructed by the city. The court seemed to lay emphasis on the fact that since the contract did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Singstad
...L.Ed.2d 243. B. Whether an injunction shall issue in a particular case rests in the sound discretion of the court. Mitchell v. Chambers Construction Co., 10 Cir., 214 F.2d 515; Chambers Construction Co. v. Mitchell, 8 Cir., 233 F.2d 717; Mitchell v. Hodges Contracting Co., 5 Cir., 238 F. 2d......
-
Mitchell v. Stewart Brothers Construction Company
...Leather Craft, 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F. 2d 808; Mitchell v. Hodges Contracting Company, 5 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 380; Mitchell v. Chambers Construction Co., 10 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 515. The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has specifically recognized that "* * * the purpose of an injunction is n......
-
Mitchell v. Hodges Contracting Company
...v. McCrady Construction Co., 3 Cir., 156 F. 2d 932, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 785, 67 S.Ct. 298, 91 L.Ed. 673; Mitchell v. Chambers Construction Co., 10 Cir., 214 F.2d 515. 10 E.G., § 319(a), Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. § 319(a); 47 CFR 1.301; FCC Form 301, "Application for Aut......
-
Scalia v. Samir Ghosn, Individually, & the Chateau of Lawton, Inc.
...of section 255 of this title)."73 Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. & Br. in Supp. (Dkt. 27) at 27–29.74 Id. at 28.75 Mitchell v. Chambers Const. Co. , 214 F.2d 515, 517 (10th Cir. 1954).76 Id.77 Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. & Br. in Supp. (Dkt. 27) at 9, n. 4.78 Id. at this title the restraint of any wit......