Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., No. 11198.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | SIBLEY, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit |
| Citation | 148 F.2d 768 |
| Parties | WALLING v. JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL CO. |
| Docket Number | No. 11198. |
| Decision Date | 23 April 1945 |
148 F.2d 768 (1945)
WALLING
v.
JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL CO.
No. 11198.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 23, 1945.
Douglas B. Maggs, Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Asst. Solicitor, U. S. Dept. of Labor, and George M. Szabad, Attorney, in Chief Appellate Section, Office of Solicitor, U. S. Dept. of Labor, all of Washington, D. C., and Geo. A. Downing, Regional Attorney, Dept. of Labor, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Charles Cook Howell, Elliott Adams, and Harold B. Wahl, all of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.
Charging that Jacksonville Terminal Company was violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., as to a number of its employees, which it claimed to be learners, by failing to pay the minimum wages and to keep the records required by the Act with respect to them, the Administrator sought to enjoin such violation. The Company admitted the allegations,
The facts as found by the district court are not disputed. The Company has at Jacksonville, Florida, a large and complicated network of tracks and interlocking switches by means of which it assembles and prepares for departure all outgoing trains, and disassembles all incoming trains of all the railroads, handling about 100 trains per day, and having more than a thousand employees, in interstate commerce. A full crew serves each engine, consisting of a yard foreman, two switchmen, an engineer and a fireman. To operate with safety and without confusion the switchmen and enginemen must have knowledge not only of general railroad work, but of the yards and switches and signal systems and rules of operation of the Company. Following a general practice of railroads, the Company requires of all applicants for employment in engine or switching service that they undergo a training period, during which no compensation is paid. The trainee is assigned to work with a full crew. He learns first by observation, and then by doing some of the regular work under the supervision of the crew member whose work he is doing. A trainee has no regular time to report or hours for training, though generally he joins a crew at the beginning of their shift and exhibits his permit to receive instruction. He is free to select such time each day as best suits his convenience, and frequently appears after completing his day's work elsewhere. He is required to study the Company's rules and regulations, and become familiar with the terminal, its layout, interlocking and signal devices, location of tracks and other facilities, touching all of which he must stand an examination before he can work as a regular employee. After evidencing his ability practically, as certified by a required number of his instructors, and standing his examination, he may be placed on the pay roll and become entitled to the wages established by collective bargaining. Upon his first day's regular employment he goes on the Company's seniority list. The length of time taken for training varies with the previous experience, the aptitude and the intelligence of the trainee. Some men qualify in a day, some require two weeks, and some never qualify. The average is about a week.
The trainee is under no obligation to become a regular employee, nor is the Company under obligation to give him such employment. The Company has never considered him as an employee till given his first assignment. Under its labor agreements with its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hale v. State of Ariz., Nos. 88-15785
...at the same time. Arizona responds that § 203(g)'s language must be "understood with common sense," Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 148 F.2d 768, 770 (5th Cir.1945), and the common sense of it is that inmates are required to work as a function of their By its terms, the FLSA requires ......
-
Reich v. IBP, Inc., Civ. A. No. 88-2171-EEO.
...if work is undertaken by the employee with the employer's knowledge and consent. 29 U.S.C. § 203(g); Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 148 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1945); Donovan v. Hudson Stations, Inc., 1983 WL 2110, 99 Lab.Cas. (CCH) ¶ 34,463 (D.Kan.1983). Even though an employer has not sp......
-
Walling v. McKay, Civ. No. 155.
...if he permits another to work for him, though he has not expressly hired or employed him. Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 768. That certiorari has been granted in Walling v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry., 6 Cir., 155 F.2d 1016 and in Walling v. Portland Termi......
-
McKay v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 20-14044
...a full crew for a training period averaging about a week were not employees under the FLSA. See Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. , 148 F.2d 768, 769–71 (5th Cir. 1945).2 According to the majority, we all agree that unpaid recent graduates—just like student interns—are properly analyzed ......
-
Hale v. State of Ariz., Nos. 88-15785
...time. Arizona responds that § 203(g)'s language must be "understood with common sense," Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 148 F.2d 768, 770 (5th Cir.1945), and the common sense of it is that inmates are required to work as a function of their By its terms, the FLSA requires st......
-
Reich v. IBP, Inc., Civ. A. No. 88-2171-EEO.
...if work is undertaken by the employee with the employer's knowledge and consent. 29 U.S.C. § 203(g); Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 148 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1945); Donovan v. Hudson Stations, Inc., 1983 WL 2110, 99 Lab.Cas. (CCH) ¶ 34,463 (D.Kan.1983). Even though an employer has not sp......
-
Walling v. McKay, Civ. No. 155.
...if he permits another to work for him, though he has not expressly hired or employed him. Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 768. That certiorari has been granted in Walling v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry., 6 Cir., 155 F.2d 1016 and in Walling v. Portland T......
-
McKay v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 20-14044
...a full crew for a training period averaging about a week were not employees under the FLSA. See Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. , 148 F.2d 768, 769–71 (5th Cir. 1945).2 According to the majority, we all agree that unpaid recent graduates—just like student interns—are properly analyzed ......