Wirtz v. Lieb
Decision Date | 14 September 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 8454.,8454. |
Citation | 366 F.2d 412 |
Parties | W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. William C. LIEB, Jr., doing business as AAA Exterminators, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
William Fauver, Washington, D. C. (Charles Donahue, Bessie Margolin and Robert E. Nagle, Washington, D. C., with him on brief), for appellant.
Frank D. McSherry, McAlester, Okl., for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge and HICKEY and JONES*, Circuit Judges.
This is a conventional wage and hour case in which the trial court found from creditable evidence that the employerappellee is engaged in the pest control business with four places of business in Oklahoma and three in Texas; that he maintains an office in McAlester, Oklahoma, where employees "as a regular part of their duties receive daily reports, service contracts, payments on account and other records and correspondence from the other places of business, including those in Texas, and similarly prepare and mail or otherwise send to other places of business, including those in Texas, service tickets, service contracts, accounts receivable, records, parts and other records and correspondence."
The court held these activities constituted engaging in commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the employees so engaged were not exempt from the minimum wage, overtime, record keeping requirements of § 11(c) of the Act, i. e. Act of June 25, 1938, c. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended; 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; and see 29 C.F.R. 1516.2; that no record was kept of the hours worked and the hourly wage paid any employee engaged in activities subject to the Act. The court accordingly concluded that the Secretary was entitled to a § 15(a) conventional injunctive decree but denied the claim for minimum wage and overtime compensation apparently for insufficiency of the proof to support the claim of the twenty-four employees in whose behalf the suit was brought.
The employer does not now seem to contend that the described activities are not subject to the Act. Indeed, as the trial court found, he has now undertaken to comply with the requirements of the Act with respect to the employees found to be covered thereby. In any event, no appeal is taken from the injunctive decree based on coverage. And see Wirtz v. First National Bank & Trust Company, et al., July Term, 1966, 10 Cir., 365 F.2d 641.
The established rule in cases of this kind is that Mitchell v. Caldwell, 10 Cir., 249 F.2d 10, 11, and cases cited.
The unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation for the twenty-four employees were computed by a wage and hour investigator who testified that in arriving at the hourly rate paid an employee, he took the basic work week of an employee as being forty hours and from records for that and preceding weeks determined the hourly rate of each individual employee, i. e. whether $1 per hour or $1.15 per hour. He computed unpaid minimum wages due each employee based upon the difference between the rate paid and the statutory minimum rate applicable at the time the wages were paid. If the payroll record showed that a particular employee was paid in excess of his payroll...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bustillos v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Hidalgo Cnty.
...worked each week and the wages due per pay period. See Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. at 686-87; Wirtz v. Lieb, 366 F.2d 412, 414 (10th Cir. 1966)(Murrah, J.); Mitchell v. Caldwell, 249 F.2d 10, 11 (10th Cir. 1957)(Bratton, J.); Doty v. Elias, 733 F.2d 720, 725 (10th Cir. 198......
-
Bustillos v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Hidalgo Cnty., CIV 13-0971 JB/GBW
...worked each week and the wages due per pay period. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. at 686-87; Wirtz v. Lieb, 366 F.2d 412, 414 (10th Cir. 1966)(Murrah, J.); Mitchell v. Caldwell, 249 F.2d 10, 11 (10th Cir. 1957)(Bratton, J.); Doty v. Elias, 733 F.2d 720, 725 (10th Cir. 1984); ......
-
Cuevas v. Bill Tsagalis, Inc.
...work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. (See Williams v. Tri-County Growers, Inc. (3d Cir.1984), 747 F.2d 121; Wirtz v. Lieb (10th Cir.1966), 366 F.2d 412.) The only evidence introduced on this matter was plaintiff's testimony that he would take one meal break per day of no more ......
-
Marshall v. Gerwill, Inc.
...66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946). Accord, Hodgson v. Elm Hill Meats, 463 F.2d 1186, 1187 (6th Cir. 1972); Wirtz v. Lieb, 366 F.2d 412, 414-15 (10th Cir. 1966). Defendants first argue that the time spent in the beginning of the driver's shift and at the end was preliminary to and po......