Murray v. Homestead Valve Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 October 1947
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 6186.
• Citation: Murray v. Homestead Valve Mfg. Co., 84 F.Supp. 572 (E.D. Pa. 1947)
• Parties: MURRAY et al. v. HOMESTEAD VALVE MFG. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

84 F. Supp. 572

MURRAY et al. v. HOMESTEAD VALVE MFG. CO.

Civ. A. No. 6186.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

October 8, 1947.

Charles J. Margiotti, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Lee Pressman, of Washington D. C., for plaintiffs.

C. M. Thorp, Jr., J. Roland Johnston and Thorp, Bostwick Reed & Armstrong, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

GIBSON, District Judge.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515, handed down on June 10, 1946, a large number of actions were instituted in this District wherein the plaintiffs claim overtime compensation and liquidated damages for time allegedly spent either before or after the regular work shift in walking on employer's property to or from work, in waiting for work, in changing clothes, in obtaining equipment or tools, or in similar activities. The claims are asserted under Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 207(a).

These actions are known as portal-to-portal suits, and each names a large number of plaintiffs, one suit numbering them at over 20,000, another at over 8,000.

The defendants in each of forty-three of these actions have moved to dismiss the complaint, basing the motion on the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq. In each case the essential allegations were substantially the same, none of them asserting any exception to the Portal-to-Portal Act in the shape of any written or unwritten contract or any custom or practice for the payment of the overtime claimed. The claims and motions to dismiss, respectively, presenting the same subject matter, the motions to dismiss were all heard on the same day, when the constitutionality of the Portal-to-Portal Act was debated. It was generally admitted that if the Act is constitutional the motions to dismiss in the instant cases must be allowed.

The Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 is, in effect, an amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which applied to industries, employers and employees engaged in interstate commerce; United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430. In other words, the Act of 1947 is an act designed to regulate a phase of interstate commerce. In passing upon the present motions to dismiss the complaints, the constitutional power of Congress over commerce must be considered.

The power of the Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce is wide. In the exercise of such power it may act even though the effect of its action may destroy existing rights under contracts. North American Co. v. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686, 66 S.Ct. 785, 90 L.Ed. 945; Norman v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885, 95 A.L.R. 1352; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467, 31 S.Ct. 265, 55 L.Ed. 297, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 671.

In the instant cases none of the plaintiffs rely upon a contract but each claims that prior to the approval of the Portal-to-Portal Act he had a vested right by virtue of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The contention to this effect is unsound. By a subsequent statute Congress may withdraw rights granted by a statute without violating any provision of the Constitution. Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226, 24 A.L.R. 1077; State of Louisiana v. Mayor, 109 U.S. 285, 3 S.Ct. 211, 27 L.Ed. 936; Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 19 L.Ed. 264; Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429, 14 L.Ed. 210; United States ex rel. Rodriguez v. Weekly Publications, 2...