Antis v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

63 F. Supp. 669, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1758
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedDecember 21, 1945
DocketNo. 4404
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 F. Supp. 669 (Antis v. Montgomery Ward & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Antis v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 63 F. Supp. 669, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1758 (E.D. Mich. 1945).

Opinion

LEDERLE, District Judge.

I. This is an action by 81 Detroit warehouse employees of Montgomery Ward & Co., in 43 different j.ob classifications, seeking unpaid overtime compensation in accordance with the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were paid straight time for overtime work and their request here is for damages aggregating $50,000, being double the amount of unpaid extra one-half time for overtime, plus an allowance of a $4,000 fee to their attorney. Early in the pendency of the proceeding, upon request of plaintiffs and at a cost of some $1,500, defendant furnished a detailed statement of hours worked and wages paid in various classifications for each individual employee during the entire time in question. Several pre-trial conferences were held and unsuccessful attempts made to obtain from plaintiffs a comprehensive statement of facts or proposed stipulation of facts covering their various claims. On the eve of trial plaintiffs presented a short proposed stipulation of a few facts, which, with a few minor changes, was consented to by defendant. The order for trial requested each side to present proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law three days before trial. Defendant complied with this request, supplementing its aforesaid statement of wages and hours with a 42 page document, in which it fairly detailed most of the facts herein involved. This document was reviewed at the opening of trial, defendant conceded the facts to be as therein set forth, and, except for a few minor points, it was conceded by plaintiffs to contain a correct and complete statement of facts. This procedure saved considerable time, aided the court, and made it unnecessary for plaintiffs’ counsel to prove the essential facts. The following findings, numbered II (1) to (33), inclusive, are based upon this document, as supplemented by the few minor matters developed upon the trial.

II. (1) The defendant is an Illinois corporation, duly qualified to transact business in the State of Michigan.

The defendant is a merchandising company doing business in all forty-eight states of the Union; it sells approximately $500,-000,000 worth of merchandise annually to approximately 30,000,000 customers; it operates over 600 retail stores, 190 mail order offices and ten mail order houses; its general administrative offices and a wholesale warehouse, as well as two mail order houses and one retail store, are located in Chicago; it sells building materials, farm machinery, heating apparatus, plumbing supplies, electrical and auto supplies, repair parts, clothing, shoes, drugs, furniture, hardware, home furnishings, and dry goods; it operates three factories which are minor compared to its entire business, which supply about 2% of the total merchandise sold by the Company. All other merchandise is purchased from independent manufacturers or wholesalers. The central executive and administrative offices of the Company are in Chicago.

The defendant operates in excess of 30 retail stores in the State of Michigan. Four of said retail stores are in the Detroit area, one being located in Royal Oak, one at 13551 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, one at 15406 Grand River Avenue, Detroit, and one at 14455 Gratiot Avenue, Detroit. The Company also has a catalog telephone order desk in each of the retail stores in the Detroit area.

[671]*671(2) The defendant’s Retail Department is divided into Regions, which, in turn, are subdivided into Districts. The retail store business is operated separately and independently of the mail order business of the defendant.

(3) On the date this action was instituted (September 28, 1944), District 7 of Region 2 of the Retail Department was comprised of five units, all of which are located in the Detroit area. The addresses and opening dates of the respective units of District 7 are as follows:

Unit Address Opening Date Royal Oak Store 4th & Washing-1929 ton Sts. Royal Oak, Michigan Dearborn Store Michigan & October 1937 Gratiot Store Schaefer Sts. Dearborn, Michigan Gratiot near Sev-August 1939 Central Ware-en Mile Road Detroit, Michigan 17th & Hancock October 1939 house and 15th & Grand River Warren Avenues Detroit, Michigan Grand River & May 19-10 Store Greenfield Detroit, Michigan

(4) District 7 is under the general supervision of the Retail District Manager who has charge of the District office located in the Grand River Store. The following officers are associated with the Manager at the District Office:

District Controller District Advertising Manager District Merchandise Managers District Protection Superintendent.

(5) Each of the five units of District 7 is under the immediate supervision of a manager. On September 28, 1944, the names of the unit managers were as follows :

Royal Oak Store Dearborn Store Gratiot Store Central Warehouse Grand River Store Robert M. Barden R. L. Eastabrooks Barton Williams A. H. Lindabury L. E. French

Each of the above managers is under the immediate and direct supervision of the Retail District Manager, Mr. R. W. Rose-vear.

(6) The primary function of District 7 is to sell and deliver goods, wares, and merchandise to retail customers in the Detroit area. Its secondary function is to provide repair and service facilities for its retail customers.

(7) District 7 sells and delivers three general lines of merchandise to its retail customers in the Detroit area.

The A-Line (Wearing Apparel) is divided as follows:

Division Article 9 Fur coats 10 Cloth coats 11 Fashion accessories 12 Millinery 14 Silk dresses 15 Cotton dresses 16 Piece goods and notions 18 Blankets and Linens 24 Shoes 26 Rubber footwear 29 Underwear 30 Hosiery and accessories 31 Children’s wear 32 Lingerie 35 Men’s furnishings 39 'Men’s and Boys* Suits and Overcoats 42 Work clothes

The B-Line (Home Furnishings) is divided as follows:

Division Article 45 Jewelry 48 Toys 51 Phonograph records 53 Toilet articles 54 Candy 62 Radios 66 Furniture 68 Stoves 69 Electrical refrigerators 71 Curtains and draperies 72 , Rugs and floor coverings 85 Electrical Washing Machines^ Vacuum Cleaners, etc.

The C-Line (Hardware, Auto Accessories lows: and hard goods) is divided as fol-

Division Article 56 Gasoline (Royal Oak, Gratiot and Grand River) 60 Sporting goods 61 Auto Accessories 64 Tires 67 Camera supplies 74 Roofing and building materials 75 Paint 76 Wall paper 81 Plumbing and heating 83 Electrical hardware 84 Hardware 86 House wares 87 Farm and garden supplies

(8) At each of the retail stores one floor is devoted to storage. On this floor, the store management is able to carry a suffi[672]*672cient supply of most of the divisions of merchandise above described to enable the store to meet the day to day needs of customers. Certain divisions of merchandise, however, because of the bulk or nature of the merchandise involved cannot be stored at the retail store. Therefore, the stores, in common with most all large retail stores, find it necessary to have outside storage space for the more bulky types of merchandise.

(9) Out of a total of 42 divisions of merchandise sold by District 7, it has been found necessary to have outside storage space for the following nine divisions:

División Article 62 Radios 66 Furniture 68 Stoves 69 Electrical Refrigerators 72 Floor coverings 85 Washers and ironers 74 Roofing and building materials 81 Plumbing and heating 87 Fencing, fertilizer and feed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Burhans v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
110 F. Supp. 184 (S.D. New York, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 F. Supp. 669, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antis-v-montgomery-ward-co-mied-1945.