Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., No. 230 — Civil.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Court (Maine)
Writing for the CourtLeonard A. Pierce and Cook, Hutchinson, Pierce & Connell, all of Portland, Me., for defendant
Citation61 F. Supp. 345
PartiesWALLING, Adm'r, Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Dept. of Labor, v. PORTLAND TERMINAL CO.
Decision Date18 June 1945
Docket NumberNo. 230 — Civil.

61 F. Supp. 345

WALLING, Adm'r, Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Dept. of Labor,
v.
PORTLAND TERMINAL CO.

No. 230 — Civil.

District Court, D. Maine, S. D.

June 18, 1945.


George W. Jansen, Supervising Atty., Office of Solicitor, Dept. of Labor, of Washington, D. C., and Harry A. Tuell, Dept. of Labor, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Leonard A. Pierce and Cook, Hutchinson, Pierce & Connell, all of Portland, Me., for defendant.

PETERS, District Judge.

In this action the plaintiff seeks to have the defendant enjoined from violating the sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., relating to the payment of minimum wages and the keeping of records. Sections 15(a) (2) and 15(a) (5).

The defendant denies the applicability of the statute in the situation disclosed. The principal question raised involves the employment status of certain applicants for positions who are being trained by the defendant preparatory to regular employment as trainmen, in case they qualify. If, on

61 F. Supp. 346
the evidence, they should not be considered as employees, as the term is used in the Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunctive relief asked for

Findings of Fact

The defendant is a common carrier by railroad employing yard crews in the operation of its terminal facilities at Portland. Applicants for such positions have to be taught how to do the work. They are called "trainees" or "learners." If accepted as such, a trainee is turned over to a yard crew for practical instruction, which is given by affording an opportunity for observation of the routine activities and gradually permitting him to do the actual work under supervision. This is of no immediate advantage to the Railroad however, as the trainee does not displace any member of the regular crew at the time. Rather, it is a disadvantage, because a novice undertakes the work to get experience while a trainman stands by watching him, and the operation is apt to be impeded rather than expedited. If the trainee finishes training and is certified as fit for a position as trainman his name goes "on the board," as ready for work, and he receives an allowance of $4 a day for his training period based on an eight-hour day. If he does not finish training or is not certified as competent he receives nothing. Thus the Railroad obtains a pool of qualified workmen to draw upon and the worker is in line for a job.

Inexperienced applicants for employment are informed before entering...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Walling v. v. Portland Terminal Co, No. 336
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 17 Febrero 1947
    ...to them of minimum wages. The District Court denied the injunction on the ground that the articular persons involved were not employees, 61 F.Supp. 345, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on the same ground, one judge dissenting. 1 Cir., 155 F.2d 215. See also Walling v. Jacksonville......
  • Donovan v. American Airlines, Inc., Civ. A. No. CA-3-79-1527-G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • 19 Mayo 1981
    ...on the applicable rules, the working rules and regulations as from time to time applied, and the approval of the designated officer. 61 F.Supp. 345, at 4 Despite the Labor Department's own interpretation that the question is whether the employer derives "immediate advantage" from the activi......
  • United States v. PASCUZZO, No. 4540.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 22 Junio 1945
    ...never requested an authorization of the War Production Board to authorize expenditures in excess of $2,000, for alterations, repairs, 61 F. Supp. 345 and changes to premises 4728 Frankford Avenue, 5. The construction, alterations and repairs made by the defendant to premises 4728 Frankford ......
3 cases
  • Walling v. v. Portland Terminal Co, No. 336
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 17 Febrero 1947
    ...to them of minimum wages. The District Court denied the injunction on the ground that the articular persons involved were not employees, 61 F.Supp. 345, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on the same ground, one judge dissenting. 1 Cir., 155 F.2d 215. See also Walling v. Jacksonville......
  • Donovan v. American Airlines, Inc., Civ. A. No. CA-3-79-1527-G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • 19 Mayo 1981
    ...on the applicable rules, the working rules and regulations as from time to time applied, and the approval of the designated officer. 61 F.Supp. 345, at 4 Despite the Labor Department's own interpretation that the question is whether the employer derives "immediate advantage" from the activi......
  • United States v. PASCUZZO, No. 4540.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 22 Junio 1945
    ...never requested an authorization of the War Production Board to authorize expenditures in excess of $2,000, for alterations, repairs, 61 F. Supp. 345 and changes to premises 4728 Frankford Avenue, 5. The construction, alterations and repairs made by the defendant to premises 4728 Frankford ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT