Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 11512.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 11512.,11512. |
| Citation | 199 F.2d 455 |
| Parties | WOODS LUMBER CO. v. TOBIN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Canale, Glankler, Little, Boone & Loch, Memphis, Tenn., for appellants.
William S. Tyson, Solicitor, Bessie Margolin, Asst. Solicitor, William A. Lowe and Sylvia S. Ellison, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., and Paul H. Sanders, Regional Atty., and William P. Murphy, Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel.
And it appearing that the exemptions created in § 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended October 26, 1949, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213, are to be narrowly construed, Fletcher v. Grinnell Brothers, 6 Cir., 150 F.2d 337; West Kentucky Coal Company v. Walling, 6 Cir., 153 F.2d 582; Powell v. United States Cartridge Company, 339 U.S. 497, 517, 70 S.Ct. 755, 94 L.Ed. 1017;
And it appearing that the District Court correctly held that the employees on appellant's derrick boats are not seamen within the meaning of § 13(a) (14) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a) (14);
And it appearing that the District Court correctly held that all employees working on appellant's towboats and derrick boats and occupied in unloading barges should be counted for the purpose of determining the number of employees engaged in the operations listed in § 13(a) (15) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a) (15);
And it appearing that the total number of appellant's employees so engaged in lumbering and forestry operations as defined, § 13(a) (15) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a) (15), exceeds twelve;
And no reversible error appearing in the record;
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and it is affirmed upon the grounds stated in the oral opinion, the findings of fact, and the conclusions of law of the District Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. Alexander Acosta Sec'y Labor v. Timberline S. LLC
...or the production of goods for commerce or may be engaged in other exempt operations will not affect these conclusions (Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 199 F. 2d 455 (C.A. 5))29 C.F.R. § 788.13 (emphasis added). The same analysis applies where an employee engages in some exempt activities and so......
-
McLaughlin v. Harbor Cruises LLC
...Marshall v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., 458 F.Supp. 709 (D.Mass.1978). 8.Dole v. Petroleum Treaters, Inc., 876 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.1989). 9.Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 199 F.2d 455 (6th Cir.1952). 10.Owens v. SeaRiver Mar., Inc., 272 F.3d 698 (5th Cir.2001); Knudsen v. Lee & Simmons, 163 F......
-
McLaughlin v. Harbor Cruises LLC
...Inst., 458 F.Supp. 709 (D. Mass. 1972). 8. Dole v. Petroleum Treaters, Inc., 876 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1989). 9. Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 199 F.2d 455 (6th Cir. 1952). 10.Owens v. Seariver Mar., Inc., 272 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2001); Knudsen v. Lee & Simmons, 163 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1947); McCarth......
-
Mitchell v. Gatlin
...807, 89 L.Ed. 1095. Concerning defendants' claim of forestry exemption, the only case in point seems to be that of Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 6 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 455. In that case the court held that where the total number of the defendants' employees engaged in lumbering and forestry op......
-
29 C.F.R. § 783.32 "Seaman" Includes Crew Members
...( Sternberg Dredging Co. v. Walling, 158 F. 2d 678; Cuascut v. Standard Dredging Co., 94 F. Supp. 197; Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 199 F. 2d 455). However, an employee employed as a seaman does not lose his status as such simply because, as an incident to such employment, he performs some wo......
-
29 C.F.R. § 788.13 Counting the Eight Employees
...of goods for commerce or may be engaged in other exempt operations will not affect these conclusions ( Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 199 F. 2d 455 (C.A. 5)). Except for replacements, therefore, all of an employer's employees employed in the named operations in a workweek must be counted, regar......
-
29 C.F.R. § 788.11 "Transporting [Such] Products to the Mill, Processing Plant, Railroad, Or Other Transportation Terminal."
...if performed as part of the exempt transportation will be considered a step in the exempt transportation ( Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 199 F. 2d 455 (C.A.5)). However, any other loading, transportation, or other activities performed in connection with the logs or other forestry products afte......