Walling v. Harnischfeger Corporation
Decision Date | 17 November 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 8553.,8553. |
Citation | 145 F.2d 589 |
Parties | WALLING, Adm'r of Wage and Hour Div., U. S. Dept. of Labor, v. HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Louis Quarles, Leo Mann, Maxwell H. Herriott, and Thomas W. Korb, all of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.
Douglas B. Maggs, Bessie Margolin, and David S. Polier, Department of Labor, all of Washington, D. C., Kenneth P. Montgomery, of Chicago, Ill., and Archibald Cox, Associate Sol., of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before EVANS, MAJOR, and MINTON, Circuit Judges.
This suit is one to enjoin defendant's alleged violation of the one and one-half overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The violations were denied by defendant. The court found for plaintiff and permanently enjoined defendant "from violating the provisions of Sections 15(a) (1) and 15(a) (2) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938" in the respects designated. Defendant appealed from this decree.
The facts are free from dispute. There is a mutual concession of good faith between opposing litigants and differences are concededly advanced, honestly. The employees, while not admitting the validity of defendant's contention, are not the complainants. They were represented by the Union, the United Steelworkers of America in all the negotiations. Defendant and its employees are, in other words, in seeming accord over their wage agreement, which they reached amicably and which is the result of their joint successive wage agreement efforts dating back to 1938. In other words, the parties, prior to the passage of the Act in question, began the present incentive wage practice in 1927 and provided for one and a half overtime compensation as far back as 1933.
Generally stated, the controversy is over the correct base upon which defendant must compute its time and a half pay for overtime work. There is no dispute as to the existence or terms of the wage contract which the employees and defendant negotiated. It is in writing and provided for compensations of the employees at a rate higher than the minimum provided for by the Act, and it fixed the hours of service and overtime payments where services exceed the eight hour day and the forty hour week.
Differences arise out of the time and a half payment to a group of employees numbering about 1250 (of the total of 4000) who are defined as "incentive workers." "Incentive workers" are described as piece workers who are employed under an agreement which fixes an hourly rate ranging from 58¢ to $1.08 per hour and also provided for additional pay in case the worker or workers were able to show results better than the time study schedules for the various products. Nearly all (98½%) of these incentive workers have in each pay roll period earned more than their basic or fixed wage because they did their work more speedily than the time study calculations set for the particular task. An interesting chart has been submitted, which shows the amount of incentive pay which the incentive wage earners have received because of their ability to turn out work faster than the estimated time fixed for the doing of the task. This chart shows the incentive pay varies from 2¢ to 29¢ an hour over the basic wage schedule. The amount of the incentive pay of an employee is dependent solely upon his skill and industry. The compensation of an incentive worker may be no more than base rate pay — and but for the contract, might be even less.
The legal controversy is over the application of time and a half pay to these incentive workers. Plaintiff contends that the overtime computations should be upon the basis of the actual wage paid to the incentive worker including incentive pay. The defendant argues that the basic wage rates fixed in the wage agreement are the correct bases for computing the time and a half pay.
The controlling statute reads as follows:
Sec. 7(a) — "No employer shall * * * employ any of his employees * * * for a workweek longer than forty hours * * * unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed."
What was the "regular rate" at which defendant's incentive workers were employed? This is the question for decision.
The employment contract, here involved, provides:
The decision in Walling v. Belo Corp., 316 U.S. 624, 62 S.Ct. 1223, 86 L.Ed. 1716, controls the disposition of this appeal. The Belo case and Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 62 S.Ct. 1216, 86 L.Ed. 1682, were decided the same day. Neither represents the unanimous opinion of the Court. We must assume the majority of the Court found the two opinions were entirely reconcilable.
We see no good reason for not accepting the pronouncement of principle appearing in the Belo opinion and applying it here, even though the facts in that case differ from the one before us. The heart of the decision in the Belo case 316 U.S. 624, 62 S.Ct. 1227, 86 L.Ed. 1716 is to be found in the statement, "It is agreed that as a matter of law employer and employee may establish the `regular rate' by contract."
Nor can we ignore the philosophy back of the final conclusion, which is expressed, thus:
Recently decided (November 6, 1944) by the Supreme Court, is the case of Walling, Administrator, v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 65 S.Ct. 11, 14, and the opinion there announced sheds further light on the proper application of the overtime wage rate provision of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
As in the Belo case, the Court affirmatively stated what the Act contemplated. We quote from the opinion:
"The Act clearly contemplates the setting of the regular rate in a bona fide manner through wage negotiation between employer and employee, provided that the statutory minimum is respected."
The opinion is largely devoted to showing that the rates fixed in that case...
To continue reading
Request your trial- In re Waern Bldg. Corporation
-
Walling v. Harnischfeger Corporation
...of overtime the piece rates actually paid. 54 F.Supp. 326. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that judgment by a divided vote. 145 F.2d 589. Our attention here is focused upon a determination of the regular rate of compensation at which the incentive workers at which the incentiv......
-
Selan v. Becker
...Corporation, D. C., 54 F.Supp. 326, decided by this court. While that decision was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 7 Cir., 145 F.2d 589, it was in turn approved by the Supreme Court in Walling v. Harnischfeger Corporation, 325 U.S. 427, 65 S.Ct. 1246, 1250, 89 L.Ed. 1711. The inqu......
-
Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co.
...Walling v. A. H. Belo Corporation, 316 U.S. 624, 62 S.Ct. 1223, 86 L.Ed. 1716, and possibly on the recent case of Walling v. Harnischfeger Corporation, 7 Cir., 145 F.2d 589. The defendant says that the rationale of these cases is that if the employees and the employer conduct a bona fide ne......