Mitchell v. INDEPENDENT ICE & COLD STORAGE COMPANY
| Decision Date | 10 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3466,3536. |
| Citation | 183 F. Supp. 686 |
| Parties | James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. INDEPENDENT ICE & COLD STORAGE COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation, and Dan Arias, Defendants (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
M. J. Parmenter, Birmingham, Ala., Harold C. Nystrom, Acting Sol., Washington, D. C., Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., Oliver M. Cooper, Jr., Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff.
Dixon, Flynn & Trigg, T. Paine Kelly, Jr., of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, Fla., for defendants.
These actions were instituted by James P. Mitchell, as Secretary of Labor, pursuant to Section 216, Title 29 U.S.C.A., authorizing him to sue on behalf of employees for alleged unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Although different employees and different periods of employment were involved in the two actions, the same were consolidated for trial before a jury by agreement of the parties.
One of the defenses asserted by both defendants in the pleadings and at pretrial conference was a denial that the use plaintiffs had been engaged in commerce within the definition of that term as set out in the Fair Labor Standards Act. And in their statement of issues at the pre-trial conference, the defendants asserted that the evidence would reveal the existence of issues of law which have not been settled finally by the courts, requiring dismissal of the actions.
After the jury was duly empaneled, the plaintiff produced as witnesses variout owners of shrimp boats operating from the port of Tampa, and employees of two shrimp packing houses doing business in the city. It appeared from the testimony of these witnesses that defendant, Independent Ice & Cold Storage Company, sold large quantities of ice to the owners of shrimp boats for the purpose of icing their vessels. The ice was put through a blower which crushed the same and blew it into the holds of the vessels to prepare them for receiving their cargoes of shrimp. The vessels then proceeded from the port of Tampa to the fishing area, usually the Campeche grounds in international waters off the coast of Mexico, a distance of approximately 750 miles. When the vessel had made its catch and the shrimp was deposited in its hold, the vessel returned to the port of Tampa and the shrimp was marketed through the local packing houses. All of the ice blown into the hold of a vessel was consumed in the fishing operations and was never transported into any other state of the United States or into any foreign country, and never left the State of Florida except for the excursion of the vessel into international waters.
The employees of the packing concerns testified that their employers bought ice from the said defendants for their processing operations, and one of these witnesses testified to the manner in which the ice was used. It appears that the same was crushed and used to preserve the shrimp during a portion of the process by which they were prepared for market. First the shrimp were put through a grader which separated the various sizes, and then they were placed on large tables where they were peeled and veined. In both of these operations the crushed ice was sprinkled on the shrimp, keeping them at low temperature to prevent spoiling. All of the ice purchased from the said defendant was consumed in the operations performed in the grading, peeling and veining of the shrimp.
After the shrimp were prepared in the foregoing manner, they were placed in paper cartons according to size. No ice was placed in the carton with the shrimp, and no ice was used or came into contact with them after they left the peeling tables. The paper cartons were then conveyed to the freezers where they were quick frozen, still without use of ice. After the freezing process the boxes were made ready for shipment and ultimately a large percentage of them were sold and transported in interstate commerce.
There was no material dispute as to any of the foregoing facts and the same must be taken as true by the court.
The plaintiff also produced many of the employees for whose benefit the suit was brought and introduced testimony concerning the number of hours worked and the wages received. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the defendants severally moved for a directed verdict and for dismissal of the actions for lack of jurisdiction of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Independent Ice & Cold Storage Company
...by the courts. The motion was granted and the actions were dismissed. The district court's findings and conclusions are reported in 183 F. Supp. 686. The Secretary has appealed from the judgment of The corporate appellee, Independent Ice & Cold Storage Company, Inc., here referred to as Ind......