Scott v. Ford, Bacon & Davis

Citation55 F. Supp. 982
Decision Date20 July 1944
Docket NumberNo. 3357.,3357.
PartiesSCOTT v. FORD, BACON & DAVIS, Inc.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

Mark C. McQuillen and Darlington Hoopes, both of Reading, Pa., for plaintiff.

Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll and Thomas Burns Drum, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

KALODNER, District Judge.

This action was brought under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 1938, 52 Stat. 1069, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), to recover damages and alleged unpaid overtime.

The sole issue for determination is whether the plaintiff comes within the protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.

A jury trial was waived, and the case was submitted upon the pleadings and additional testimony. Accordingly, I make the following

Findings of Fact

1. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., was employed by the Defense Plant Corporation, a corporation created by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation pursuant to Section 5d of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 606b to build and construct a large factory outside of Pottstown, Pennsylvania, for the manufacture of aircraft engines and parts.

2. Mr. Frank Heyd was chief engineer for Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., in charge of construction, and he employed the plaintiff, Albert C. Scott, as a concrete inspector.

3. Scott's duties were to see that the designed specification for making concrete was followed, that is, the amount of cement, stone, water and sand were properly weighed and batched into each mix.

4. The water used in the batching machine came from a 50,000 gallon tank located on the premises. In the early part of August, 1942, the tank frequently became empty with the result that no water was available for batching purposes. Since Scott would be the first person to notice this shortage, Heyd instructed him to assume the responsibility for keeping the 50,000 gallon tank filled.

5. The 50,000 gallon tank was connected to pumps designated as Nos. 1 and 3, and although it supplied water for construction purposes, substantially more than half was used as drinking water at the plant and for sanitary purposes.

6. Scott was instructed to start these pumps at 7 A. M. so that there would be sufficient water for batching purposes at 8 A. M. It was only necessary to throw a switch to start the pumps, and it was necessary to shut and open two valves to allow the water to go up to the 50,000 gallon tank. The whole operation required about ten minutes; it was approximately a five minute job to shut them down. The same procedure was followed about 3 P. M. Scott could estimate, by the pressure gauge, how much water was required to fill the tank, and it was a simple matter to figure out how long it would take. Scott was instructed to see that the tank was filled and that it did not overflow; he was not instructed to sit at the pump house, and he was expected to attend to his duties at the batch plant.

7. There was a 150,000 gallon tank which was used for fire protection. It was part of construction responsibility to see that this tank was filled, since construction work is also a fire hazard.

8. The 150,000 gallon tank could be checked by gauges, and it was necessary to fill it approximately once a week. Scott was instructed to check these gauges and fill the tank. It took approximately ten minutes to adjust the valves and throw the switch to turn on the pumps, and it was a simple matter to determine how long it would take to fill the tank. Scott had to return to the pump house to turn off the pumps, but in the meantime it was his responsibility to be at his batch plant checking the mix.

9. During the period in controversy, Scott worked seven days per week and his average work week was approximately 65 hours, and his average work day between nine and ten hours.

10. Only a very small part of Scott's time was used in turning on and shutting off the pumps and filling the tanks.

Discussion

There is no doubt that the determination of whether an employee is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act is an individual matter depending on the nature of the employment of the particular employee. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 1942, 316 U.S. 517, 524, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 1943, 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460. The rule is succinctly stated in the latter case (317 U.S. at page 571, 63 S.Ct. at page 337, 87 L.Ed. 460): "The fact that all of respondent's business is not shown to have an interstate character is not important. The applicability of the Act is dependent on the character of the employees' work." This view was adopted by the Wage and Hour Division prior to the Supreme Court's expression: Interpretative Bulletin No. 1, Paragraph 3, October 12, 1938, 2 C.C.H. Labor Law Service Sec. 32,101; Abram v. San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co., D.C.S.D.Cal., 1942, 46 F.Supp. 969, 973; Samuels v. Houston, D.C.S.D.Ga., 1942, 46 F.Supp. 364, 366.

There is also no doubt that insofar as defendants were engaged in local construction, they were not within the Act. Interpretative Bulletin No. 5, Paragraph 12, November, 1939, 2 C.C.H. Labor Law Service Sec. 32,105; Barbe v. Cummins Const. Co., D.C.D.Md., 1943, 49 F.Supp. 168.

Finally, it is not disputable that insofar as water was supplied to the Jacobs Aircraft Engine Corporation it was essential, and so closely connected with the manufacture of goods for interstate commerce as to bring it within the purview of the Act. Since the testimony was that substantially more than half the water from the 50,000 gallon tank was used by the Jacobs plant, it is necessary to consider the whole pumping operation as being connected with the manufacture of goods for interstate commerce, even though the rest of the water was used for construction purposes.

The narrow question of the case, therefore, is whether a substantial part of plaintiff's activities related to producing goods for interstate commerce, or more precisely, to operating...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Adams v. Long & Turner Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 3, 1947
    ...Noonan v. Fruco Construction Co., 140 F. (2d) 633; Brue et al. v. J. Rich Steers, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 668; Scott v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 982; Collins v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 424; Walling v. McCrady Construction Co., 156 F. (2d) 932; Joseph J.A. Kelly v. For......
  • Hartmaier v. Long
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 12, 1951
    ...Inc., and Parham v. Austin, note 9, supra. See also Brue v. J. Rich Steers, Inc., D.C., 60 F.Supp. 668, 670; Scott v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., D.C.E.D. Pa., 55 F.Supp. 982, 983. We need not discuss the additional defense that plaintiffs' claims are barred by Sec. 9 of the Portal to Portal......
  • Adams v. Long
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • March 3, 1947
    ......v. J. Rich Steers, Inc., 60 F.Supp. 668; Scott v. Ford,. Bacon & Davis, Inc., 55 F.Supp. 982; Collins v. Ford, Bacon ......
  • Reed v. Murphey, 12173.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 9, 1948
    ...v. S. Birch & Sons Construction Co., 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 37; Nieves v. Standard Dredging Corp., 1 Cir., 152 F.2d 719; Scott v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., D.C., 55 F.Supp. 982. Plaintiffs have wholly failed to discharge their burden of proving that they, as distinguished from their employer, we......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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