Shepler v. Crucible Fuel Co. of America

Decision Date03 February 1943
Docket NumberNo. 1957.,1957.
Citation60 F. Supp. 260
PartiesSHEPLER et al. v. CRUCIBLE FUEL CO. OF AMERICA et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

Schlesinger & Schlesinger, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Jno. C. Bane, Jr., Nicholas Unkovic, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

This is an action filed in this court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of June 25, 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., for the recovery by plaintiffs from the defendants of compensation for alleged overtime in the course of their employment as watchmen over defendant Crucible Fuel Company's property at Singer's Landing, which was a floating barge located on the Ohio River in Pittsburgh; Shepler being employed as night watchman, and Rice as day landing man. Their employment began in the spring or summer of 1937, and ended May 1, 1942, when the Landing was discontinued by the defendant, Crucible Fuel Company.

At the trial, counsel for the defendant Crucible Steel Company of America moved to dismiss the complaint as to that company, and counsel for the plaintiffs offered no objection thereto. It was thereupon directed that the complaint be dismissed as to that company, and the trial proceeded as to the Crucible Fuel Company.

The question at issue is whether or not the Fair Labor Standards Act should be applied in determining the wages to which these plaintiffs would be entitled from the defendant, Crucible Fuel Company.

By Section 6 of the Act, the prescribed minimum wages must be paid to each employee "who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce." By Section 7, overtime compensation must be paid to such employees. Section 3(j) of the Act provides that "For the purposes of this act an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods if such employee was employed * * * in any process or occupation necessary to the production thereof, in any State."

The Crucible Fuel Company is engaged in the business of mining coal. It owns a mine at Crucible on the Monongahela River in Greene County, Pennsylvania; and from that point ships its mined coal in its own barges to three steel plants of the Crucible Steel Company located on the banks of the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers. These coal barges are towed to the steel plants by two tow steamboats owned and operated by the defendant Crucible Fuel Company. In the course of these towing operations, Crucible Fuel Company maintained a floating dock or landing on the Ohio River, known as "Singer's Landing", consisting of icebreakers, two flat boats — (a fuel flat and a mooring flat), a house-boat and a pump-boat, — all moored to the ice-breakers.

Defendant Crucible Fuel Company used this landing as a temporary mooring for its barges, both loaded and empty, when the convenience of said Fuel Company made it desirable or necessary to leave barges there. This landing was also used by the other river-boat owners and operators for the same purpose, without charge therefor, in accordance with an established river custom. Among such operators was the Hillman Transportation Company which moved barges between October 24, 1938, and April 28, 1940, some of which were loaded with coal en route to interstate transportation.

Plaintiff Shepler was night-landing man in charge of this landing from 6 P. M. to 6 A. M. His duties were to protect the equipment comprising the landing, and all craft moored there, from trespass and injury. He was required to inspect all moored barges at hourly intervals and to pump out any excess of water accumulated in any barge, to see that lights required by law were kept burning. He was also required to keep a log-book of occurrences at the landing. Plaintiff Rice had the same duties each day from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M.

The coal mined by the Fuel Company does not itself pass into interstate commerce. It is mined in Pennsylvania and delivered in Pennsylvania to the Crucible Steel Company, which transforms it at its steel mills into coke and in that form is used by the Crucible Steel Company to charge its furnaces in the process of manufacturing iron and steel, which products are sold and delivered by the Steel Company in interstate commerce. Practically all of the capital stock of the Fuel Company is owned by the Crucible Steel Company.

On these facts it is our view that plaintiffs were engaged in occupations "necessary to the production" of iron and steel which go into interstate commerce. Without fuel the furnaces of the Steel Company could not operate at all. The fact that the Steel Company uses as a medium for getting that fuel to its furnaces a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary corporation, the Crucible Fuel Company, does not withdraw the employees of that subsidiary corporation from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Those engaged in the mining of coal and transporting it from the mines to the furnaces are engaged in an occupation "necessary to the production of goods for commerce." Whether they work for the Steel Company directly, or for a wholly-owned subsidiary, can make no difference, because without fuel you cannot operate a furnace in a steel mill.

In our opinion, this case falls squarely within the ruling of the Supreme Court in Kirschbaum v. Walling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Wiley v. Stewart Sand & Material Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 10 Noviembre 1947
    ...The Court ruled for the right party in rendering judgment for the respondents. Walling v. C. E. Amidon, 153 F.2d 159. Shepler v. Crucible Steel Company, 60 F.Supp. 260. 10 E. 40th Street Building, Incorporated, v. 65 S.Ct. 1227. (2) Under all the evidence the appellants were engaged in comm......
  • Walling v. McCrady Const. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 28 Marzo 1945
    ...Bracey v. Luray, 4 Cir., 138 F.2d 8; Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Hargrave, 10 Cir., 129 F.2d 655. See also our opinion Shepler v. Crucible Steel Co., 60 F.Supp. 260, wherein plaintiffs were seeking to recover from Crucible Steel Company compensation for overtime under the Fair Labor Stan......
  • Richard Wiley et al. v. Stewart Sand & Material Co., 20824.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 10 Noviembre 1947
    ...Bank of Miami, Okl., 138 F. (2d) 699. Plaintiffs direct our attention to the cases of Walling v. Amidon, 153 F. (2d) 159; Shepler v. Crucible Steel Co., 60 F. Supp. 260; Walling v. People's Packing Co., 132 F. (2d) 236; Wagner v. American Serv. Co., 58 F. Supp. 32. A reading of those cases ......
  • McElroy v. City of New York
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 3 Mayo 1966
    ...meal elsewhere without running the risk of disciplinary action or penalties for belated resumption of his work. Shepler v. Crucible Fuel Company of America, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 260; Tully v. Joshua Hendy Corporation, D.C., 79 F.Supp. 709; Thompson v. F. W. Stock & Sons, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 213, 6......
  • 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