Walling v. Plymouth Mfg. Corporation, 272.
| Decision Date | 11 September 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 272.,272. |
| Citation | 46 F. Supp. 433 |
| Parties | WALLING, Administrator of Wage & Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, v. PLYMOUTH MFG. CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Warner W. Gardner, Sol., and Roy C. Frank, Atty., both of Washington, D. C., and Frank J. Delany, Acting Regional Atty., Philip E. Byron, Jr., Atty., U. S. Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division, both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Albert B. Chipman and Arnold, Degnan, Dohnalek & Goheen, all of South Bend, Ind., for defendants.
The Plymouth Manufacturing Corporation was a small manufacturing corporation in the town of Plymouth, Indiana, a rural community. It gave greatly desired employment to something like one hundred men and women. It was in strained financial condition and had made no profit for a number of years prior to 1938. When the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S. C.A. § 201 et seq., was passed and it became known it would go into effect in October, 1938, it was decided by the executive officers of said corporation, and announced to all its wage earners, that the corporation could not continue in business and comply with the requirements of said Act. It had made no profit before the advent of such Act and it was a reasonable certainty it would go in the red after the Act became effective. What to do? — was the question put up to the employees.
After many conferences it was decided to form a copartnership among those former employees who desired a continuance of the business and their jobs. The partnership was formed. The employees became copartners, with drawing accounts and an agreement, in writing, that they, the former employees, were to share in the profits if any. All were to have a just and fair interest in the profits to be allocated to each worker, according to his contribution of labor.
There was nothing illegal or immoral in this arrangement even though it was entered into by all the parties with the avowed intention to avoid the impact, on the business of the corporation, of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It was not the declared purpose of this Act to put small concerns out of business. It is the declared policy, as expressed in the Act, "to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power." It is not unlawful to so plan one's business affairs, that the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheeler v. Hurdman
...rev'd sub nom, Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop., 366 U.S. 28, 81 S.Ct. 933, 6 L.Ed.2d 100 (1961) (cooperative); Walling v. Plymouth Mfg. Co., 46 F.Supp. 433 (N.D.Ind.1942), aff'd, 139 F.2d 178 (7th Cir.1943) (partnership); Fleming v. Palmer, 123 F.2d 749 (1st Cir.1941) ...
-
Mitchell v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc., 5513.
...as to a partnership involving approximately one hundred persons was reached by the district court in Walling v. Plymouth Mfg. Corporation, D.C.N.D.Ind.1942, 46 F.Supp. 433, affirmed on other grounds, 7 Cir., 139 F.2d 178, certiorari denied, 1943, 322 U.S. 741, 64 S.Ct. 1144, 88 L.Ed. 1574. ......
-
Porter v. Federated Meat Corporation
...were actually trying to do the former they would indeed be, as they claim to be, within the principle on which Walling v. Plymouth Mfg. Corporation, D.C. N.D.Ind., 46 F.Supp. 433, affirmed, 7 Cir., 139 F.2d 178, certiorari denied, 322 U.S. 741, 64 S.Ct. 1144, 88 L.Ed. 1574, was decided. See......