Walling v. Merchants Police Service
| Decision Date | 23 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 722.,722. |
| Parties | WALLING, Administrator of Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Dept. of Labor, v. MERCHANTS POLICE SERVICE, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Douglas B. Maggs, Sol., and Archibald Cox, Associate Sol., both of Washington, D. C., and Jeter S. Ray, Regional Atty., and David V. Manker, Atty., both of Nashville, Tenn., for U. S. Department of Labor.
Joseph W. Cambron, of Louisville, Ky., for defendant.
The defendant, Merchants Police Service, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky.
Since its organization and incorporation on July 25, 1944, the defendant has been engaged in the business of contracting with business and industrial firms and corporations located in and near Louisville, Kentucky, to furnish and provide guards and watchmen for the protection of their industrial plants and establishments, and furnishing such service for the compensation provided by the contracts with its customers.
In order to render the service for which it contracts with its customers, the defendant, from time to time, selects and hires qualified persons as guards or watchmen, who are assigned by the defendant to patrol, guard and watch the various properties of its customers.
The wages or salaries for which the guards perform the work are fixed by agreement between the defendant and the respective guards and the defendant fixes and determines their hours of work and all other conditions and practices of the guards while so engaged at the establishments of the customers, assigns the various guards to the particular work for which they are needed from time to time, prescribes rules and regulations to govern their conduct and supervises, directs and controls them in the discharge of their duties.
Each of the guards, before being permanently hired by the defendant, is subjected to a preliminary training or probation of several weeks or more to enable the defendant to determine whether he is qualified for the work and during that period the defendant pays directly to the guard his agreed wages or salary.
In fulfilling its contracts with its various customers, the defendant utilizes the services of approximately 45 regular guards for each of whom the defendant procures from the Governor of the State a commission as local police officer in accordance with the provisions of 61.360 Kentucky Revised Statutes; and for their protection the defendant carries, at its own expense, workmen's compensation and employer's liability insurance.
In compliance with 61.360(3), Kentucky Revised Statutes, the defendant at semimonthly intervals furnishes to the Treasurer of the State of Kentucky a statement of the names of the guards who have worked during the preceding half month and the amount of wages or salary due each of them and pays into the State Treasury an amount equal to the aggregate wages or salaries shown on the statement; thereupon the Treasurer of Kentucky issues or causes to be issued separate checks, drawn upon the State treasury, payable to the order of the guards whose names appear on the list submitted by the defendant, in amounts shown opposite their respective names, less Federal income taxes required to be withheld, which checks are then transmitted to the defendant and delivered by it to the respective payees. The State issues no checks to any guard not listed on the statement furnished by the defendant and pays out only the amount of defendant's remittance to the State for that purpose. At the times required by the Federal laws, Federal income taxes so withheld are duly paid to the Federal Government and appropriate withholding tax receipts are issued by the State agency in charge of the matter.
Neither the State of Kentucky nor any officer or agency thereof, nor any of the defendant's customers, for whose plants or places of business protection is furnished, exercise any direct control, authority or supervision over the guards at any time or take any part in negotiating or determining their wages, salaries, hours of labor, places...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walling v. McKay
...82 (Fair Labor Standards Act); United States v. Vogue, Inc., 4 Cir., 145 F.2d 609 (Social Security Act); Walling v. Merchants Police Service, Inc., D.C.Ky., 59 F.Supp. 873 (Fair Labor Standards Act); Walling v. Rutherford Food Corporation, 10 Cir., 156 F.2d 513, certiorari granted 67 S.Ct. ......
-
Brown v. Sentinel Investigations Service, Inc.
...211 F.2d 241; Moehl v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., D.C., 84 F.Supp. 427; Salvo v. Keating, D.C., 61 F.Supp. 838; Walling v. Merchants Police Service, D.C., 59 F.Supp. 873). In 'Walton' a fire insurer would reduce the premiums if night watchmen were employed. That, said the Court, was evi......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation
...employers. At least as to those matters, the deputized guards remain employees of the private employers. See Walling v. Merchants Police Service, D.C., 59 F.Supp. 873. Hence they may be held to be employees within the meaning of § 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. National Labor Rel......
-
Walling v. Wabash Radio Corporation
...v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170; Fleming v. Demeritt Co., D.C., 56 F.Supp. 376; Walling v. Merchants Police Service, D.C., 59 F.Supp. 873, and since it is also well established that a man might have two different employers, Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. et al......