Union Terminal Co. v. Pickett, 9612.
| Citation | 118 F.2d 328 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 9612.,9612. |
| Parties | UNION TERMINAL CO. v. PICKETT. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Robert G. Payne, John C. Robertson, and Neth L. Leachman, all of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Chas. M. Hay, S. D. Flanagan, and Edwin D. Franey, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Leon M. Despres, of Chicago, Ill., Julian Hartridge, of Jacksonville, Fla., Irving J. Levy, Asst. Sol. in Charge of Litigation, Dept. of Labor, of Washington, D.C., and John E. Skilling, Atty., Dept. of Labor, of Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied June 2, 1941. See 61 S.Ct. 1115, 85 L.Ed. ___.
This case is similar to Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, 5 Cir., 118 F.2d 324, this day decided, except that on a trial without a jury the district court reached an opposite conclusion and rendered a large judgment for wages and damages against Union Terminal Company. The facts are about the same and need not be restated. The applicable law is the same and requires a like decision. It does not appear that any of the monies collected and retained by the red caps were personal gifts and not compensation for the service which the Terminal Company hired them to perform; so that no contract was necessary to make them the money of the Company. The proceeds of the very thing the employee is hired to do belong as a matter of law to the employer, even though it be so personal a thing as the brain child of an inventor. Standard Parts Co. v. Peck, 264 U.S. 52, 44 S.Ct. 239, 68 L.Ed. 560, 32 A.L.R. 1033. Though the red caps did not agree to the plan stated in the notice to them, they did continue at work and collected money for their services and accounted for it as required. The law had intervened to make the Company owe them a stated wage for those services, and in consequence to deprive them of the tips which previously were their compensation.
The argument that the former arrangement, though not a formal collective agreement, ought to be held unchangeable by the employer alone, cannot be sustained; both because there was no collective agreement that the tips should belong to the red caps, and because a collective agreement would not avail against changes wrought by a statute.
Nor do we think it lies in the red cap's mouth to say that the whole idea of letting the passenger fix the amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lorenzetti v. American Trust Co.
...held that tips should not be considered part of their wages. The Circuit Court reversed the District Court on this latter ground alone. 118 F.2d 328. On March 2, 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the Circuit Court's decision with regard to the computation of wages, but said "Since the basic......
-
Roberts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...compensation for his service, to secure better service or in recognition of it." (Emphasis added.) See also, Union Terminal Co. v. Pickett, 5 Cir., 1941, 118 F.2d 328.1 Two prior decisions of the Tax Court, by implication at least, recognize tips as income. In Bateman v. Commissioner, 1936,......
-
Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co Pickett v. Union Terminal Co
...of the public were not wages paid by the employer, he gave judgment in favor of the red caps. The circuit court of appeals reversed, 5 Cir., 118 F.2d 328, and certiorari was denied. 313 U.S. 591, 61 S.Ct. 1115, 85 .l.Ed. 1546. Because of the importance of the issues presented, on petition f......
-
Southern Package Corp. v. Walton
...... "Redcaps" employed at union terminal stations,. Pickett v. Union Terminal Co., D.C.Tex., 33 F.Supp. ......