Durkin v. Wadley Co.

117 F. Supp. 562, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4297
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedOctober 28, 1953
DocketCiv. No. 3168
StatusPublished

This text of 117 F. Supp. 562 (Durkin v. Wadley Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Durkin v. Wadley Co., 117 F. Supp. 562, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4297 (S.D. Ind. 1953).

Opinion

STECKLER, District Judge.

The Court; having considered the pleadings, and Stipulation of Facts filed in this action July 8, 1953, and the exhibits submitted therewith, and now being fully advised in the premises, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

Findings of Fact.

1.' Defendant, the Wadley Company, is - and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Indiana, having its principal office at 335 West North Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

2. Defendant maintains and operates five processing plants located in the State of Indiana at Indianapolis, Terre Haute, and Columbus, and in the State of Illinois at Pana and Mattoon.

a. At its Indianapolis plant defendant is engaged in the processing of poultry, eggs, and cream.

b. At its Terre Haute Plant defendant is engaged in the processing of poultry, eggs, and condensed buttermilk.

c. At its Columbus plant defendant is engaged in processing poultry and eggs.

d. At its Pana plant defendant is engaged in processing poultry and eggs.

e. At its Mattoon plant defendant is engaged in processing eggs.

f. A substantial portion of the products processed at each of defendant’s five processing plants is shipped, delivered, and sold to customers located in States other than those in which each of the individual plants is located. The parties have stipulated that defendant’s employees performing processing operations at each of defendant’s processing plants are engaged in the production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.

3. Defendant maintains and operates six country routes directly out of three of its processing plants, as hereinbelow described.

a. Defendant operates one country route out of its Terre Haute processing plant. One of defendant’s employees in the Terre Haute plant operates the country route. This employee, hereinafter referred to as a “route employee”, in operating the country route, is engaged away from defendant’s Terre Haute processing plant in purchasing and picking up poultry and eggs from farmers along his route, and then transporting [564]*564these products by truck from such farmers’ farms to the Terre Haute processing plant. Due to seasonal variations the country route is operated a varying number of days each workweek. In some workweeks the route employee, in addition to operating the country route, also performs work in the Terre Haute processing plant and/or performs trucking work other than that related to the country route.

The route employee at the Terre Haute plant works from 40 to 60 hours per week. He is compensated at a regular rate of $1.25 per hour. In workweeks that the route employee is engaged both in operating his country route and in performing work in the Terre Haute plant and/or performing trucking work other than that related to the country route, he is paid time and one-half his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40. In workweeks in which the route employee is engaged exclusively in operating the country route, he is paid time and one-half his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 48 per week.

b. Defendant operates four country routes out of its Pana, Illinois processing plant. Four of defendant’s employees in its Pana plant operate the four country routes. These employees, hereinafter referred to as “route employees”, in operating the four country routes, are engaged away from defendant’s Pana processing plant in purchasing and picking up poultry and eggs from farmers along their routes and then transporting these products by truck from such farmers’ farms to the Pana processing plant.

These four route employees work 8 to 10 hours per day and five days per week in operating the country routes. In addition to operating the country routes, the four route employees perform work in the Pana processing plant and/or perform trucking work other than that related to the country routes. In performing this work the route employees work one day per week, 5 or 6 hours per day. These four route employees are paid at a rate of $1 per hour and time and one-half said rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Defendant holds a State license to trade in live market poultry at this plant, and a separate license for each of defendant’s four motor vehicles used in the purchase of poultry on the route, as required by the Illinois Poultry Dealers License Law, Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, c. 8, § 127 et seq.

Defendant holds a State Class Two (II) Dealer’s License at this plant to purchase eggs, as required by the Illinois Egg Law, Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, c. 56%, § 55a et seq.

c. Defendant operates one country route out of its Mattoon, Illinois processing plant. One of defendant’s employees in its Mattoon plant operates this country route. This employee, hereinafter referred to as a “route employee”, in operating the country route, is engaged away from defendant’s Mattoon processing plant in purchasing and picking up poultry and eggs from farmers along his route and then transporting these products by truck from such farmers’ farms to the Mattoon processing plant.

This route employee normally works 9 hours per day, five days per week in operating the country route. In addition this employee works 9 hours per day, one day per week in performing work at the Mattoon processing plant. This employee is paid $1 per hour and time and one-half said rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Defendant holds a State license to trade in live market poultry at this plant, and a separate license for defendant’s motor vehicle used in the purchase of poultry on the route, as required by the Illinois Poultry Dealers License Law.

Defendant holds a State Class Two (II) Dealer’s License to purchase eggs, as required by the Illinois Egg Law.

d. The parties have stipulated that defendant’s route employees described herein in subparagraphs a, b, and c of Finding 3 are engaged in the production [565]*565of goods for commerce, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

4. a. Defendant owns, maintains, and operates nine stations at Danville, Franklin, Greencastle, New Ross, Lebanon, Waldron, and Scottsburg, all located in Indiana, and at Paris and Ramsey located in Illinois. Cream, poultry, and eggs are purchased, received, and handled by defendant’s employees employed at these stations, as more particularly described herein. These products are shipped to defendant’s processing plants: The Danville, Franklin, Greencastle, New Ross, Lebanon, and Waldron, Indiana stations ship to the Indianapolis processing plant; the Paris, Illinois station ships to the Terre Haute processing plant; the Ramsey, Illinois station ships to the Pana, Illinois processing plant; and the Scottsburg, Indiana station ships to the Columbus, Indiana processing plant.

b. During the year 1952, the total products purchased by these stations, both at the stations and/or the country routes, were as follows:

740,918 Doz. Eggs —Dollar Value $236,089.20

993,120 Lbs. Poultry —Dollar Value 197,340.21

94,078 Lbs. Butter Fat —Dollar Value 58,142.70

Grand Total of All Purchases $491,572.11

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

Related

Short title
29 U.S.C. § 201

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 F. Supp. 562, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durkin-v-wadley-co-insd-1953.