Wirtz v. Standard Container and Paper Company
| Decision Date | 16 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 24333.,24333. |
| Citation | 389 F.2d 134 |
| Parties | W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. STANDARD CONTAINER AND PAPER COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Bessie Margolin, Associate Sol., Dept. of Labor, Robert E. Nagle, Carin Ann Clauss, Attys., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Helen W. Judd, Attys., United States Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Attorney, for appellant.
H. Robert Koltnow, Miami, Fla., for appellees.
Before TUTTLE and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and HEEBE, District Judge.
This was an action brought by the Secretary of Labor under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § 201 et seq., seeking injunctive relief to enjoin appellees from future violations of the Act's minimum wage and overtime requirements and to enjoin future violations of back wages. Coverage is included in three categories: (1) "Engaged in commerce," (2) "Engaged in production of goods for commerce," and (3) "or closely related processes or occupations directly essential to producing goods for commerce."
During the period in question of April, 1963, through August, 1965, appellee Standard Container and Paper Company, Inc., engaged in wholesale sale of paper and cardboard products in Miami. Such products included cardboard boxes and containers, tape and other miscellaneous paper products. The general mode of operation of appellee was to purchase its paper products from both local and out of state suppliers. Appellee purchased approximately 70% of its products from suppliers located within Florida and 30% from suppliers outside Florida. Appellee received and stored the products in its warehouse for a period ranging from several days to several months. As the district court found, purchases fere not made to fulfill any special or particular orders, but were made on the basis of anticipating the needs of its customers and keeping as stock a sufficient supply for the coming orders. The products sold by appellee were sold in the same form as they were bought, except, as testified to by appellee, in infrequent occasions when wooden cross-bars would have to be placed within the boxes.
Many of appellee's customers were engaged in the garment trade and they purchased cardboard boxes and related products from appellee to ship their manufactured goods to out of state purchasers. Appellee itself made no direct shipments from the warehouse in Miami to destinations outside Florida.
A chart of appellee's customers in the garment industry might be useful:
Percentage Percentage
of Carton of Products
Requirements Shipped
Customer (Witness) Purchased Out of State
Sun Togs (Susmann) 15-25% 75%
Proper Sportsware (Rosen) 80% 50-60%
Michelle & Missy Miss (Goldfine) 53% 90%
Ed Kolber, Inc. 100% 70%
Flair (Fried) 50% 33 1/3%
Caressa Shoes (Townsend) 59.5-75.8% 94.6-97.4%
Alix (Kraus) 25-30% 60%
Bunny's Casuals (Jacobsen) 25-40% 60-65%
Pierce-Simpson (Palmer) 3-5% 85-90%
Appellee's employees concerned were in three categories: warehousemen, truck drivers and the clerical worker. The warehousemen were used indiscriminately in all of the various operations occurring at appellee's establishment, including receiving and unloading of the container merchandise, the placing of the products in storage and preparation and loading of merchandise for delivery to appellee's various customers in the Miami area. The truckers were generally engaged in making deliveries of merchandise locally from appellee's warehouse to the various customers served by appellee in the Miami area. The clerical worker prepared orders received from appellee's customers and prepared invoices, billed them and received payments and was in charge of supervising the local orders operations; this clerical worker did not order or check goods received from out of state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wirtz v. Ray Smith Transport Company
...Intravaia, 375 F.2d 62, 65 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 844, 88 S.Ct. 90, 19 L.Ed.2d 110 (1967). 11 Wirtz v. Standard Container & Paper Co., 389 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir. 1967); Wirtz v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 342 F. 2d 820 (5th Cir. 1965); Mitchell v. Hooper Equip. Co., 279 F.2d 893,......
-
Wirtz v. NATIONAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
...Life Ins. Co., 246 F.Supp. 198 (Tenn.1965), aff'd Wirtz v. Durham Sandwich Co., 4 Cir., 367 F.2d 810, and Wirtz v. Standard Container and Paper Company, 389 F.2d 134 (Fifth Cir. 1967), but in the first case, the interstate goods were delivered to a sidewalk freight elevator and taken to the......
-
South Florida Beverage Corp. v. Figueredo
...413, 90 L.Ed. 383 (1946); D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 66 S.Ct. 925, 90 L.Ed. 1114 (1946); Wirtz v. Standard Container and Paper Co., 389 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1967); Wirtz v. Soft Drinks of Shreveport, Inc., 336 F.Supp. 950 3 See note 6, infra. 4 The relevant provisions of the ......
-
Hodgson v. Royal Crown Bottling Company
...Inc., 292 F.2d 645 (5 Cir. 1961); Nunn's Battery & Electric Co. v. Goldberg, 298 F.2d 516 (5 Cir. 1962); Wirtz v. Standard Container and Paper Co., 389 F.2d 134 (5 Cir. 1967); Sucrs. De A. Mayol & Co. v. Mitchell, 280 F.2d 477 (1 Cir. 1960); Shoemake v. Gainesville Nehi Bottling Co., Inc., ......