Shultz v. Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc.

311 F. Supp. 978, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12177
CourtDistrict Court, Canal Zone
DecidedApril 7, 1970
DocketCiv. A. No. 6951
StatusPublished

This text of 311 F. Supp. 978 (Shultz v. Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Canal Zone primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shultz v. Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 978, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12177 (canalzoned 1970).

Opinion

CROWE, District Judge.

This cause was brought by George P. Shultz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, under section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act, to, among other things, enjoin defendants Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc., a corporation, and Contract Services, Inc., a corporation, from violating the provisions of section 15(a) (2) of the Act, including the restraint of any withholding of minimum wages and overtime compensation found by the Court to be due to employees of the defendants under the Act.

The case came on before the Court on April 7, 1970, at Balboa, Canal Zone, plaintiff being represented by Morton J. Marks and defendants by William J. Sheridan, Jr. Having considered the stipulations of fact entered into by the parties in open court and evidence related thereto, arguments and statements of counsel, the pleadings, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court does hereby now make and enter, pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff, George P. Shultz, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was the duly appointed Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, charged with the duties, responsibilities, and authority vested in him by the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (52 Stat. 1060, as amended; 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. (a) Defendant Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc., is a subsidiary of Auto Service Company, S.A., and is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a Delaware corporation registered, licensed, and doing business within the Canal Zone and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

(b) At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc. was and is engaged in the operation of a public franchised motor vehicle transportation system within the Canal Zone.

(c) The public franchised motor vehicle transportation system referred to in Finding of Fact No. 2(b) hereof, includes, among other activities, the transportation of passengers, on a fee basis, to, from, and between designated points within the Canal Zone.

(d) At all times hereinafter mentioned, the final and binding determinations and decisions concerning the operations and policies of defendant Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc. were and are under the direction, authority and control of Mr. Lawrence Adler.

3. (a) Defendant Contract Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Auto Service Company, S.A., and is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a Delaware corporation registered, licensed, and doing business within the Canal Zone and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

(b) At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Contract Services, Inc. was and is engaged in the operation of a contract transportation system by motor vehicle within the Canal Zone.

(c) The contract transportation system referred to in Finding of Fact No. 3(b) hereof includes, among other activities, the transportation by motor bus of school children to and from their homes and the various schools they are attending within the Canal Zone, pursuant to contract with the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

(d) At all times hereinafter mentioned, the final and binding determinations and decisions concerning the operations and policies of defendant Contract Services, Inc. were and are under the [980]*980direction, authority and control of Mr. Lawrence Adler.

4. (a) Auto Service Company, S. A., referred to in Findings of Fact numbered 2 and 3 hereof, is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a Panamanian corporation with offices located within the Republic of Panama.

(b) At all times hereinafter mentioned, the final and binding determinations and decisions concerning the operations and policies of the aforesaid Auto Service Company, S.A. were and are under the direction, authority and control of Mr. Lawrence Adler.

5. (a) At all times hereinafter mentioned, defendants, and each of them, employed, and they are employing, a number of employees in and about their aforesaid places of business and elsewhere in the Canal Zone in:

(1) Ordering, receiving, unloading, handling, and otherwise working on goods, such as automotive parts, tires and related supplies, received from persons and firms located outside of the Canal Zone;
(2) Transporting, within the Canal Zone, persons engaged in the operation and maintenance of the Panama Canal, the Canal Zone and the various military establishments located within the said Canal Zone;
(3) Transporting, within the Canal Zone, pursuant to contract with the Armed Forces of the United States, dependents of persons engaged in the operation and maintenance of the various military establishments located within the said Canal Zone; and
(4) Operating, maintaining, repairing and otherwise working on motor vehicles used in the transportation of persons to, from, and through points within the Canal Zone.

(b) At all times hereinafter mentioned, many of the employees employed by each defendant herein have been and are individually engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce as defined in sections 3(b) and 3(j) of the Act.

6. (a) At all times hereinafter mentioned, the motor vehicle transportation systems operated by defendant Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc. and defendant Contract Services, Inc. were and are related, and were and are performed under common control for a common business purpose, within the meaning of section 3(r) of the Act.

(b) At all times hereinafter mentioned, the annual gross volume- of sales (exclusive of any excise taxes at the retail level which have been or are being separately stated) derived from the motor vehicle transportation business activities of defendants was and is not less than $1,000,000.

(c) At all times hereinafter mentioned, all of the factors necessary to constitute defendants Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc. and Contract Services, Inc. an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, as set forth in sections 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act and as specified in these Findings of Fact, were present.

7. (a) Throughout the period since June 6, 1967, defendants Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc. and Contract Services, Inc. have paid to their employees, referred to in Finding of Fact No. 5 hereof, for workweeks in which they were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages at rates less than those required to be paid by section 6(a) (1) of the Act.

(b) Throughout the period since June 6, 1967, defendants Canal Zone Bus Service, Inc. and Contract Services, Inc.

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

Related

Maryland v. Wirtz
392 U.S. 183 (Supreme Court, 1968)
Wirtz v. Chain Singh
243 F. Supp. 239 (District Court, Canal Zone, 1965)
Wirtz v. Washeterias, S. A.
304 F. Supp. 624 (District Court, Canal Zone, 1968)
Shultz v. Atlantic Bus Service, Inc.
304 F. Supp. 947 (District Court, Canal Zone, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
311 F. Supp. 978, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shultz-v-canal-zone-bus-service-inc-canalzoned-1970.