Rutherford Food Corporation v. Comb, No. 562

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtREED
Citation67 S.Ct. 1473,331 U.S. 722,91 L.Ed. 1772
PartiesRUTHERFORD FOOD CORPORATION et al. v. McCOMB
Decision Date16 June 1947
Docket NumberNo. 562

331 U.S. 722
67 S.Ct. 1473
91 L.Ed. 1772
RUTHERFORD FOOD CORPORATION et al.

v.

McCOMB.

No. 562.
Argued April 9, 10, 1947.
Decided June 16, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1947. See 68 S.Ct. 29.

Page 723

Mr. E. R. Morrison, of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioners.

Miss Bessie Margolin, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor brought this action o enjoin t he Rutherford Food Corporation and the Kaiser Packing Company from further violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.1 The Administrator alleged that the defendants had repeatedly failed to keep proper records and to pay certain of its employees overtime as required by § 7 of the Act.2 The District Court refused to grant the injunction. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on appeal, and directed the entry of the judgment substantially as prayed for. Walling v. Rutherford Food Corporation, 10 Cir., 156 F.2d 513. We brought the case here because of the importance of the issues presented by the petition for certiorari to the administration of the Act.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, enacted June 25, 1938, is a part of the social legislation of the 1930's of the same general character as the National Labor Relations Act of July 5, 1935, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. Decisions that define the coverage of the employer-Employee relationship under the Labor and Social Security acts are persuasive in the consideration of a similar coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Pub-

Page 724

lications, 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170; United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 67 S.Ct. 1463.

The petitioners are corporations of Missouri authorized to do business in Kansas. The slaughterhouse of the Kaiser Packing Company, the place of the alleged violations with which we are concerned, and the principal place of business of that company, is in Kansas City, Kansas, from which it ships meat in interstate commerce. Since 1942 most of its product has been boned beef. The petitioner, Rutherford Food Corporation, has its principal place of business and its plant for processing meat products in Kansas City, Missouri. In 1943, Rutherford bought 51% of the stock of Kaiser in order to assure itself of a constant supply of boned beef for contracts it had with the U.S. Army. Kaiser had been operating and continued to operate at a loss, and Rutherford advanced more than $50,000 to Kaiser between March, when Rutherford bought the Kaiser stock, and July 1943. To assure itself of a continued supply of meat, Rutherford leased Kaiser's facilities and took over operation of the slaughterhouse in July. In May, 1944, the lease was terminated and Rutherford's stock interest in Kaiser sold, so that Kaiser might qualify for subsidies granted by the Defense Supplies Corporation to unaffiliated nonprocessing slaughterers under its Regulation No. 3.3

Prior to 1942 Kaiser had one hourly paid employee who acted as a combined butcher, beef boner and order filler. During 1942, in order to be able to furnish beef boned to Army specifications to the Army under contract, Kaiser entered into a written contract with one Reed, an experienced boner, which provided that Reed should assemble a group of skilled boners to do the boning at the slaughterhouse. The terms of the contract were that Reed should be paid for the work of boning an amount per hundred-

Page 725

weight of boned beef, that he would have complete control over the other boners, who would be his employees, that Kaiser would furnish a room in its plant for the work, known as the boning vestibule, into which the carcasses of cattle slaughtered by Kaiser would be moved on overhead rails by Kaiser employees, that Kaiser would also furnish barrels for the boned meat which would be washed and moved out of the vestibule by Kaiser's employees. Reed abandoned the work in February, 1943, and the work was taken over under an oral contract by one of the boners who had worked with him. This boner, Schindel, also abandoned the work in May, 1944, and an oral contract was then made by the company with Hooper and Deere, who had worked with Schindel. After a few onths Deer e left, at which time Hooper entered into a written contract substantially like the one between Kaiser and Reed, save that it provided for rent to be paid by Hooper for the boning room, although as a matter of fact no rent was ever paid. The District Court found that since the boning work had started in 1942, the money paid by Kaiser had been shared equally among all the boners, except for a short time after Hooper took over the work when he paid some of the boners by the hour. It was stipulated further that the boners owned their own tools, although these consisted merely of a hook to hold the meat, a knife to cut it, a sharpener for the knife, and a leather belt (apron). Although the C.I.O. union which was the representative of the workers of the company insisted that the boners be members, and although the written contracts provided that they should join, it was stipulated that the union dues of the boners were not checked off and that the boners were not subject to the authority of the union steward at the plant.

The slaughterhouse operations, of which the boning is a part, are carried on in a series of interdependent steps.

Page 726

The cattle are slaughtered, skinned and dressed in the killing room, and the carcasses are moved thence on overhead rails into an overnight cooler by employees of Kaiser. The next day they are moved into another cooler and then into the boning vestibule, on the same overhead rail. They move around the boning room on the rail, each boner cutting off a section for boning. The boneless meat is put into barrels, or passed to a trimmer, an employee of Kaiser, who trims waste matter from the boned meat. Waste is put into other barrels. The barrels are moved from the boning room by employees of Kaiser into another room, called the dock, where the meat is weighed and put on trucks. Kaiser has never attempted to control...

To continue reading

Request your trial
814 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 17, 2008
    • November 17, 2008
    ...203(g). As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, that definition is strikingly broad. See, e.g., Rutherford Food Co. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730 (1947). Whether an employment relationship exists must be determined in light of the economic realities of the Goldberg v. Whitaker House ......
  • Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994; implementation,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 19, 2005
    • December 19, 2005
    ...generally examine five or six factors. Landis, supra, section 2. No one of the factors is determinative. Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947). Moreover, the factors are ``simply analytical tools,'' thus, ``their weight, number and composition are variable.'' Dole v. Snell, 8......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 19, 2005
    • December 19, 2005
    ...generally examine five or six factors. Landis, supra, section 2. No one of the factors is determinative. Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947). Moreover, the factors are ``simply analytical tools,'' thus, ``their weight, number and composition are variable.'' Dole v. Snell, 8......
  • Lasater v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01373-SVW-AS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • November 2, 2017
    ..." Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 1477, 91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947) ). The determination is a question of law whereby "[t]he touchstone is 'economic reality.' " Id. (qu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
804 cases
  • Powell v. United States Cartridge Co Aaron v. Ford, Bacon Davis Creel v. Lone Star Defense Corporation 8212 1949, Nos. 96
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1950
    ...attach to their relationship nor by common law categories nor by classifications under other statutes. Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 91 L.Ed. 1772; Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 150, 67 S.Ct. 639, 91 L.Ed. 809; McComb v. McKay, 8 Cir., 164 F......
  • Hopkins v. Cornerstone America, Civil Action No. 4:05-CV-332-Y.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • March 30, 2007
    ...29 U.S.C. § 203(g). The employer-employee relationship under the FLSA is broadly defined. See Rutherford Food Corporation v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 728-29, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947). In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized that the statute's definition of "employee" has "been giv......
  • Lasater v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01373-SVW-AS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • November 2, 2017
    ..." Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 1477, 91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947) ). The determination is a question of law whereby "[t]he touchstone is 'economic reality.' " Id. (qu......
  • Hess v. Suzuki, 1:10-cv-01821-AWI-BAM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • September 14, 2012
    ...but rather upon the circumstances of the whole activity." ' " Gilbreath, supra, at p. 1324 (quoting Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947)). "Where an individual exercises 'control over the nature and structure of the employment relationship,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
2 books & journal articles
  • EMPLOYMENT LAW VIOLATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...employer’s business.” Martin v. Selker Bros., Inc., 949 F.2d 1286, 1293 (3d Cir. 1991). 190. See, e.g., Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730 (1947) (f‌inding “meat boners” employed in slaughterhouse on contract-payment basis were nonetheless employees because employer exercise......
  • WHO'S AN EMPLOYEE NOW? CLASSIFYING WORKERS IN THE AGE OF THE 'GIG' ECONOMY.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 49 Nbr. 4, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...of Kaiser, within the meaning of the Act, but were independent contractors .. . ."), affirmed sub. nom., Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (38.) See NLRB v. Hearst Publ'ns, 322 U.S. 111, 113(1944). (39.) See United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 705 (1947). (40.) See U.S. BUREAU ......

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