Phillips v. Graham Aviation Co.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11480.,11480. |
| Parties | PHILLIPS et al. v. GRAHAM AVIATION CO. GRAHAM AVIATION CO. v. PHILLIPS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Eugene Horne, of Americus, Ga., for appellants and cross-appellees, L. P. Phillips and others.
W. W. Dykes and S. H. Dykes, both of Americus, Ga., for appellee and cross-appellant.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
The appeal is from a judgment dismissing an action for recovery of overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees alleged to be due employees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219. The controlling issue is whether the employment of appellants was within the coverage of the Act.
During the times in question, between December 18, 1941, and October 16, 1944, appellants were employed as guards and watchmen by the Graham Aviation Company at Souther Field in Sumpter County, Georgia. Their duties and responsibilities were the usual ones of guards and watchmen to protect and safeguard persons and property on the premises of the employer.
Under contract with the United States Government, Graham Aviation Company was engaged in the training of student fliers for service in the air forces of the nation. Students from various parts of the United States were assigned to the field by the military authorities. It is alleged that airplanes engaged in government service were frequently serviced and repaired at the field; that a canteen, which sold goods that had been procured from the channels of interstate commerce, was operated for the benefit of students; and that planes from the field frequently crossed state lines — some going to Pennsylvania where appellee maintained another training field.
Appellants contend that the stated facts establish: (1) that appellee was "conducting a business either in commerce or so closely related to commerce as to bring it within the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act"; and (2) that they, as employees, were "performing duties in commerce or so closely related to commerce" as to bring them within the coverage of the Act.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 affords coverage to those employees "engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce". There is no issue as to the "production of goods for commerce", and appellants must stand or fall on the issue of whether they are "engaged in commerce". It is unnecessary to discuss whether appellee's business of training student fliers for the government and operating a flying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Airways Parking Company
...guards and watchman at an aviation corporation which trained student fliers for the United States Government, Phillips v. Graham Aviation Co., 157 F.2d 443 (5th Cir., 1946). See other cases cited in 29 C.F.R. 776.11. Instances in which employees have been considered "engaged in commerce" fo......
-
Reed v. Murphey, 12173.
...within the meaning and coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Parham v. Austin Co., 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 566; Phillips v. Graham Aviation Co., 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 443; Noonan v. Fruco Construction Co., 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 633; Soderberg v. S. Birch & Sons Construction Co., 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 37; Nie......
-
Englert v. S. Birch & Sons Const. Co., 11313.
...v. Pan American Standard Brands, 1 Cir., 147 F.2d 994; Nieves v. Standard Dredging Corp., 1 Cir., 152 F.2d 719; Phillips v. Graham Aviation Co., 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 443. 4 D. A. Schulte, Inc., v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 66 S.Ct. 925, 90 L.Ed. 1114, 167 A.L. R. 208; Rucker v. First National Bank, ......
-
Cooper v. Rust Engineering Co.
...within the meaning and coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Parham v. Austin Co., 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 566; Phillips v. Graham Aviation Co., 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 443; Noonan v. Fruco Construction Co., 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 633; Soderberg v. S. Birch & Sons Construction Co., 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 37; Nie......