Powell v. United States Cartridge Co Aaron v. Ford, Bacon Davis Creel v. Lone Star Defense Corporation 8212 1949

Decision Date08 May 1950
Docket NumberNos. 96,79,58,s. 96
Citation94 L.Ed. 1017,70 S.Ct. 755,339 U.S. 497
PartiesPOWELL et al. v. UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE CO. AARON et al. v. FORD, BACON & DAVIS, Inc. CREEL et al. v. LONE STAR DEFENSE CORPORATION. Argued and Submitted Dec. 8—9, 1949
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Thomas Bond, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners R. M. Powell and others.

Bessie Margolin, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Mr. June P. Wooten, Little Rock, Ark., for petitioners Julia Rhoda Aaron and others.

Messrs. Pat Coon, Dallas, Tex., C. M. Kennedy, Texarkana, Tex., for petitioners Roy Creel and others.

Mr. William L. Marbury, Baltimore, Md., for respondents.

Mr. Robert H. McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent U.S. Cartridge Co.

Mr. Otto Atchley, Texarkana, Tex., for respondent Lone Star Defense Corporation.

Mr. E. L. McHaney, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for respondent Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc.

Mr. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in each of these cases is whether the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended,1 applies to a person employed, by a private contractor at a Government-owned munitions plant operated by the contractor under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract made with the United States. We hold that the Act does apply but we do not reach the question of the validity of the individual claims based upon it.

This issue was argued here in Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U.S. 249, 68 S.Ct. 1031, 92 L.Ed. 1347. We, however, remanded that case and withheld decision of the issue, awaiting a more solid basis of findings. 334 U.S. at page 257, 68 S.Ct. at page 1034, 92 L.Ed. 1347. Each of the instant cases presents such a basis.

No. 96 (The Powell Case).

In December, 1940, the United States contracted with The United States Cartridge Company, respondent herein, as 'an independent contractor and in no wise an agent of the Government' on a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee basis to operate the Government's St. Louis Ordnance Plant in Missouri.2 The contract stated that it was authorized by the Act of July 2, 1940.3 It provided that the respondent would operate the Government's plant for the manufacture of certain types and questities of small arms ammunition, that the Government would reimburse the respondent for its expenditures in such operation and, in addition, pay the respondent a fixed fee based upon the types and quantities of ammunition it supplied. The title to the site, plant, equipment and, in general, to the raw material, work in progress and finished munitions was to be in the Government.4 Most of the materials were to be supplied by the Government. The contract provided expressly for the reimbursement of the respondent's expenses for labor. The respondent, in turn, agreed to supply practically all services incident to the setting up of an efficient operating force and to the operation of the plant until the required ammunition had been produced. The respondent was made responsible for storing the materials, supplies and finished ammunition and for loading the ammunition on cars or other carriers in accordance with the Government's instructions. The ammunition generally was shipped by common carrier on Government bills of lading to military destinations outside of Missouri. The Government reserved large rights of supervision, auditing and inspection to be exercised through its 'Contracting Officer.' The employees, including the petitioners, were to be hired, assigned, directed, supervised, paid and discharged by the respondent.

The contract stated expressly that all persons engaged in the work 'shall be subject to the control and constitute employees of the Contractor * * *.' It quoted all of the 'representations and stipulations' relating to employment directed by the Walsh-Healey Act.5 Under it, the contracting officer (subject to a right of appeal) could require the respondent to dismiss any employee whom he deemed incompetent or whose retention 'is deemed' not to be in the public interest. The contract made no express reference to the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, in a booklet which was distributed by the respondent, each employee at the St. Louis Ordnance Plant was informed, among other things, that 'There will be eight hours in any working day, and forty hours will constitute a working week. * * * When production demands require a longer work day, or longer work week, the Company will pay the legal overtime rate as provided under the Walsh-Healey Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.' (Emphasis supplied.)

The 59 individual petitioners were employed in the safety department of the plant. They alleged that, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, they were entitled to overtime pay which they had not received. They sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to recover that pay, plus liquidated damages and an attorney's fee. The respondent denied liability on many grounds, including those that the Fair Labor Standards Act did not apply to employees at the St. Louis Ordnance Plant and that, in any event, these petitioners were not entitled to any recovery under that Act. After trial, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the petitioners for the total sum of $246,251.44 (twice the amount of the overtime pay claimed), plus $24,625 as an attorney's fee and costs. The respondent moved for a new trial so that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947,6 which had been adopted five days before the District Court's judgment, might be applied to the issues. The motion was denied and the case was appealed. While the appeal was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the decision of this Court in Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., supra, was announced. The Court of Appeals thereupon heard a reargument of this case with special reference to the issues raised in the Silas Mason case. Sitting en banc, it reversed the District Court and held that the Fair Labor Standards Act did not apply to employment at the St. Louis Ordnance Plant. 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 718. All seven judges held that the Walsh-Healey Act applied to such employment to the exclusion of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Four of those judges also joined in an opinion, 174 F.2d page 726, stating that the Act of July 2, 1940, had given discretion to the Secretary of War to determine what overtime regulations should be applicable to Government-owned privately operated plants and that, through his adoption of the Walsh-Healey Act, he had rendered the Fair Labor Standards Act inapplicable under this contract. The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the individual claims of the petitioners under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We granted certiorari. 338 U.S. 810, 70 S.Ct. 57.

No. 79 (The Aaron Case).

This case presents substantially the same issue as that in the Powell case, but it relates to employees at the Arkansas Ordnance Plant. The issue arises on a summary judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in favor of the respondent, rendered on pleadings, supporting affidavits, admis- sions of fact and answers to interrogatories. The plant was operated by the respondent under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract entered into with the United States in July, 1941, and generally comparable, for present purposes, with that in the Powell case. The petitioners, 1,278 in number, were handlers, carriers and processors of explosives, who claimed additional compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for approximately 35 minutes before, and 30 minutes after, their scheduled work in the plant. The respondent answered and moved for summary judgment on three grounds—that the petitioners were not engaged in the kind of work that is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, that they are not within the coverage of the Act because they were employees of the United States, and that, by virtue of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, they are not entitled to recover in any event.

In rendering judgment for the respondent, the District Court adopted its opinion in Barksdale v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, 70 F.Supp. 690. Without passing on other contentions, it there held that the Fair Labor Standards Act was not applicable because, in processing and assembling munitions under like conditions, the respondent had not been engaged 'in the production of goods for commerce' within the meaning of that Act. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, 174 F.2d 730, on authority of its decision in the Powell

case, supra. We granted certiorari. 337 U.S. 955, 69 S.Ct. 1533. No. 58 (The Creel Case). DP This case, from the Fifth Circuit, presents substantially the same issue as do the Powell and Aaron cases. The issue arises on a summary judgment in favor of the respondent, rendered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on pleadings and supporting affidavits. Here the Lone Star Ordnance Plant near Texarkana, Texas, was owned by the Government and operated by the respondent under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract entered into with the United States in July, 1941, comparable in its material features to those in the Powell and Aaron cases. The petitioners, several hundred in number, were employed at the plant in capacities such as those of truck drivers, lift-fork operators, loaders and unloaders. Their services were used in the production of munitions, such as shells, bombs, detonators and other ordnance items. The title to substantially all of the raw material, work in progress and finished products was in the Government. Most of the materials were furnished by the Government and the finished products were shipped in accordance with Government instructions on Government bills of lading to military destinations, usually outside of Texas. The petitioners sued for overtime pay claimed to be due them under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Quoting from the opinion of the District Court in the Barksdale case, supra, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
223 cases
  • Regan v. City of Charleston, C.A. No. 2:13–cv–3046–PMD.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 14, 2015
    ...States." Gaxiola v. Williams Seafood of Arapahoe, Inc., 776 F.Supp.2d 117, 124 (E.D.N.C.2011)(quoting Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 510, 70 S.Ct. 755, 94 L.Ed. 1017 (1950)). "The FLSA is best understood as the 'minimum wage/maximum hour law.' " Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Props., Inc......
  • Smith v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • July 5, 1995
    ...protection, are to be liberally construed. `Breadth of coverage' is `vital to the Act's mission.' Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 516, 70 S.Ct. 755, 765, 94 L.Ed. 1017 (1950); Schultz v. W.R. Hartin & Son, Inc., 428 F.2d 186, 189 (4th Cir.1970) (Act establishes a `presumption of......
  • Thomas v. County of Fairfax, Va.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • February 27, 1991
    ...are to be liberally construed. "Breadth of coverage" is "vital to the Act's mission". Powell v. United States Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 516, 70 S.Ct. 755, 765, 94 L.Ed. 1017 (1950); Schultz v. W.R. Hartin & Son, Inc., 428 F.2d 186, 189 (4th Cir.1970) (Act establishes a "presumption of co......
  • Regan v. City of Charleston, C.A. No.: 2:13–cv–3046–PMD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • November 3, 2015
    ...States." Gaxiola v. Williams Seafood of Arapahoe, Inc., 776 F.Supp.2d 117, 124 (E.D.N.C.2011) (quoting Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 510, 70 S.Ct. 755, 94 L.Ed. 1017 (1950) ). "The FLSA is best understood as the ‘minimum wage/maximum hour law.’ " Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Props., I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • The Sovereign Shield.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 73 No. 4, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...held that federal labor laws applied to private companies contracted to operate federal ordnance plants in Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas. 339 U.S. 497, 498-99, 502-04 (1950), superseded by statute, Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-601, [section] 401, 80 Stat. 830, 841......
  • Reconsidering Makin v. Hawaii: the Right of Medicaid Beneficiaries to Home-based Services as an Alternative to Instutionalization
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 26-3, March 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 155 (1976) (quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974)); see also Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 519 (1950) (holding that for two overlapping statutes covering the same subject matter, the interpretation that satisfies both statutes sho......
  • EMPLOYMENT LAW VIOLATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...f‌ixed by labels . . . nor by common law categories nor by classif‌ications under other statutes” (quoting Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 528 (1950))). 184. See Tony & Susan Alamo Found., 471 U.S. at 300 (noting the FLSA’s def‌initions, although expansive, “were ‘obviously not ......
  • Employment law violations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...f‌ixed by labels . . . nor by common law categories nor by classif‌ications under other statutes” (quoting Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 528 (1950))). 181. See Tony & Susan Alamo Found ., 471 U.S. at 300 (noting the FLSA’s def‌initions, although expansive, “were ‘obviously not......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • 29 C.F.R. § 783.21 Guiding Principles For Applying Coverage and Exemption Provisions
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter V. Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor Subchapter B. Statements of General Policy Or Interpretation Not Directly Related to Regulations Part 783. Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to Employees Employed As Seamen Application In General of the Act's Provisions
    • January 1, 2023
    ...scope ( Helena Glendale Ferry Co. v. Walling, 132 F. 2d 616). "Breadth of coverage is vital to its mission" ( Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co.,339 U.S. 497 ). An employer who claims an exemption under the Act has the burden of showing that it applies ( Walling v. General Industries Co.,330 U.S.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT