Walling v. NASHVILLE C. & ST. L. RY.
Decision Date | 01 June 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 10070.,10070. |
Parties | WALLING, Adm'r, Wage and Hour Div., U. S. Dept. of Labor, v. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
George W. Jansen and Morton Liftin, both of Washington, D. C. (William S. Tyson and Bessie Margolin, both of Washington, D. C., Glenn M. Elliott, of Nashville, Tenn., and Morton Liftin and Helen Grundstein, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Walton Whitwell, of Nashville, Tenn. (Wm. H. Swiggart, Edwin F. Hunt, W. A. Miller, and Walton Whitwell, all of Nashville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Appellee, The Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, is an interstate common carrier of passengers for hire. It operates in the States of Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky, and maintains offices, shops, yards and terminals at various places over its system and employs approximately 12,000 people.
On December 19, 1944, appellant filed his complaint against appellee under Sec. 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, c. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.; to restrain appellee from violating Sections 15(a) (2) and 15(a) (5) of the Act. The complaint alleged that it had violated the minimum wage and record keeping provisions of the Act with respect to 225 employees, including firemen, switchmen, stenographers, yard clerks, office clerks, messengers, callers and porters during their so-called "training periods."
Appellee's principal defense was that these "trainees" were not "employees" within the meaning of the Act.
The District Court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied the relief sought, chiefly upon the authority of Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 768.1
The persons involved were in training for positions as porters, callers, messengers, stenographers and clerks, who were commonly called "posters" and as firemen, switchmen and brakemen, who were commonly called "cubs." It is uncontroverted that in each of these different positions a period of preliminary training is essential to the efficiency of the applicant therefor, as well as his safety and that of the public. It would be unthinkable to subject the lives of employees and passengers, to say nothing of property, to the hazards which would arise from the use of untrained and incompetent servants. A training period is mandatory.
Upon the question whether such persons are trainees or employees, the court found the following material facts:
Without going into detail, we conclude that these findings have ample support in the evidence. They are certainly not "clearly erroneous" and we are bound by them. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. We have heretofore consistently followed this rule. Hazeltine Corporation v. Crosley Corporation, 6 Cir., 130 F.2d 344. There is indeed no special controversy over the facts.
It follows that there is presented for review a clear cut question of law, whether persons in training for the positions indicated above were "employees" of appellee during their training period within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It is our duty to review this question; and we remain free to draw from the findings the ultimate inferences and conclusions. Letcher County v. DeFoe, 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 987, 990; Harris Stanley Coal & Land Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 6 Cir., 154 F.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walling v. McKay
...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 Terminal Co., 1 Cir., 155 F.2d 215 and that these cases present questions similar to those......
-
Western Union Tel. Co. v. McComb
...Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., was affirmed. Walling v. Twyeffort, Inc., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 944. Appellant cites Walling v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 6 Cir., 155 F.2d 1016, affirmed 330 U.S. 158, 67 S.Ct. 644. But that case has no present bearing for it held merely that where a railroad co......
-
Burry v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc.
...district court involving issues of fact unless clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Walling v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. L. Ry., 155 F.2d 1016 (C.A.6), aff'd, 330 U.S. 158, 67 S.Ct. 644, 91 L.Ed. 816. We have read the entire transcript of the evidence introduc......
-
Houle v. Duvall, No. 6107
... ... indirect gain or profit.' Walling v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 330 U.S. 158, 67 S.Ct. 644, 91 L.Ed. 816 (1947); Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 67 S.Ct. 639, 91 ... ...