Tinerella v. Des Moines Transp. Co., 3177.

• Decision Date: 13 October 1941
• Docket Number: No. 3177.,3177.
• Citation: 41 F. Supp. 798
• Parties: TINERELLA et al. v. DES MOINES TRANSP. CO., Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

41 F. Supp. 798

TINERELLA et al. v. DES MOINES TRANSP. CO., Inc.

No. 3177.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

October 13, 1941.

David Alswang, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Dilley & Bannister, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

HOLLY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs bring their action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U. S.C.A. § 201 et seq., for monies alleged to be due them under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act which provides minimum rates of pay and Section 7 which requires payment on the basis of time and one-half for overtime.

As to the claim for wages due under the provisions for minimum wages it appears from the complaint that during the period in question, to-wit, from October, 1938, to June, 1940 the plaintiffs (except one as to whom no complaint is made in this respect) were each receiving pay in excess of the rates of pay prescribed by Section 6. The allegation of the complaint concerning wages is that during said period defendant has failed and refused to compensate said plaintiffs for all such time of employment at the rate of fifty cent (sic) an hour and from November 1, 1939 at the rate of fifty-two and one-half cents (.52½) an hour, which rates were the regular rate set by employer and the wage supposed to be paid by him for the total working time the plaintiffs were so employed. The failure and refusal of defendant to pay said plaintiffs for total time the plaintiffs were so employed was a reduction of the wage to be paid by him and a violation of Section 18 and Section 6 of the Act."

This allegation is rather confused, but from the brief filed by counsel for defendant it appears that the contention is that the employer had been paying wages at the rate set forth and, during the period of employment above mentioned, reduced the wages though still leaving them above the minimum fixed by the Act. It is provided in Section 18 of the Act: "No provision of this chapter shall justify any employer in reducing a wage paid by him which is in excess of the applicable minimum wage under this chapter, or justify any employer in increasing hours of employment maintained by him which are shorter than the maximum hours applicable under this chapter." I do not understand that the effect of this provision is to stabilize the wages paid by employers at the time the Act became effective or prevent the employer from reducing the wages then being paid, provided he keeps within the limits prescribed by the Act. In my opinion, as the wages paid by the employer after the reduction were more than the amount prescribed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, plaintiff is not entitled to recover for the alleged violation of this section.

A second claim of plaintiffs is that they were employed overtime and were not paid at the rate of time and one-half as required by the Act. It appears from the complaint that the defendant is a corporation engaged in the transporting, shipping and carrying merchandise, freight and commodities in interstate commerce by motor vehicle. Section 13 of the Fair...