Walling v. Sun Pub. Co.

47 F. Supp. 180, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2249
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee
DecidedSeptember 29, 1942
DocketCivil Action 104
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 47 F. Supp. 180 (Walling v. Sun Pub. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walling v. Sun Pub. Co., 47 F. Supp. 180, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2249 (W.D. Tenn. 1942).

Opinion

BOYD, District Judge.

The Court makes the following:

Findings of Fact

I. On March 15, 1941, plaintiff brought this action to enjoin defendant from violating the provisions of Sections 15(a) (1), 15(a) (2) and 15(a) (5), of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, U.S.C.A. Title 29, Section 201 et seq., referred to herein as the Act.

II. The complaint- alleged that defendant, between October 24, 1938, and March 15, 1941, paid certain of its employees engaged in commerce, or in the production of goods for commerce, less.than the minimum rates provided for in Section 6 of the Act, and in violation of Sections 6 and 15(a) (2) of the Act; that defendant in the said period worked certain of its employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce in excess of the maximum hours provided in Section 7 of the Act, and failed and refused to compensate said employees for their overtime at the rates provided in the Act, and in violation of Sections 7 and 15 (a) (2) of the Act; that defendant during said period sold, shipped, delivered and offered for transportation in interstate commerce from its place of business in Jackson, Tennessee, goods produced in its said place of business in the production of which certain of its employees were employed in violation of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, and that by so doing defendant had violated the provisions of Section 15 (a) (1) of the Act; that defendant had failed to make and keep records as prescribed by regulations promulgated by the Administrator, and by so doing had violated the provisions of Sections 11(c) and 15(a) (5) of the Act; and, finally, that defendant had knowingly made and recorded, or knowingly caused to be made and recorded, entries in its records that were false and inaccurate and that did not comply with the provisions of the Act and said regulations, and in so doing had violated the provisions of Sections 11(c) and 15(a) (5) of the Act.

III. Defendant operates a radio broadcasting station, WTJS, at Jackson, Tennessee, under license from the Federal Communications Commission. In its answer, defendant admitted that said station was operated in interstate commerce, and during the trial admitted that its employees employed in the broadcasting station, except where specifically exempted by the Act, are covered by the Act. Defendant denied it was producing goods for interstate commerce or employed any persons in commerce in connection with its newspaper operation; asserted certain exemptions under Section 13 (a) (1) of the Act; and affirmatively defended against the allegations in respect to its newspaper operations on the grounds that the attempted application of the Act violated its rights as guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and that Congress is without power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3, to regu *183 late its newspaper operations through such an act as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

IV. The Sun Publishing Company was first inspected by the Wage and Hour Division in December, 1939, by Inspector John McChord. Subsequent to that inspection, a conference was held in the office of Mr. Pigford, President of and counsel for The Sun Publishing Company, at which conference Mr. Pigford, Mr. Stone, General Manager of the Company, and Labor Department Attorney James H. Hynes were present. This conference took place on May 6, 1940. Some months thereafter, in December, 1940, another inspection was made by Wage and Hour Division Inspector Blynn Evans. This suit was filed March 15, 1941.

V. The minimum wage provisions of the Act were repeatedly violated in regard to the following employees: Richard Wilson and Val Morse (of the radio department) ; Clyde Arwood, Henry Phillips, Henry Little, and Bernard Applewhite (of the newspaper).

VI. There were repeated and various types of violations of the overtime provisions of the Act, with respect to practically all employees of the newspaper and the radio. All employees were hired and worked on agreed monthly or weekly salaries. They frequently and repeatedly worked longer hours each week than those specified by Section 7 of the Act, and never received additional compensation for such excess hours over and above their weekly or monthly salaries. There was no agreement with any employee as to an hourly rate of pay or overtime compensation. This was true from the effective date of the Act until the time that this suit was filed.

Prior to January, 1940, the defendant’s payroll records showed only the weekly or monthly salaries paid to employees and no record was kept of the hours worked by them, except as to the employees in the composing room who worked under the terms of a union contract.

Subsequent to January, 1940, the defendant, for bookkeeping purposes, purported to assign the employees a regular rate of pay. These rates of pay did not represent the legal regular rate of pay or any agreed rate of pay. The employees continued to receive the same fixed weekly or monthly salaries regardless of the number of hours worked, and regardless of the fact that they frequently worked in excess of the maximum workweek specified in Section 7 of the Act.

VII. The defendant kept inaccurate records in the following respects: (1) It instructed employees to turn in a specified number of hours each week, which specified number was frequently less than the number of hours they actually worked, and less than the time required to perform their assigned duties; (2) it recorded erroneous regular rates of pay and amounts for overtime on the payroll records of many of its employees; (3) it repeatedly erased and changed the amounts appearing on its payroll under columns headed “regular rate of pay,” “earnings at regular rate of pay for total hours worked,” and “earnings — extra for overtime.” However, the proof fails to disclose the defendant knowingly made false records.

VIII. The details of these violations were as follows:

1. Radio Department Announcers, Engineers, and Control Operators.

These employees worked in the third floor studio of the Sun Publishing Company building and at the transmitter station outside the city limits. Under regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, they are required to note on logs provided for that purpose all hours when the announcers are on the air, the control operators are at the controls, and the engineers are operating the transmission equipment.

Prior to January, 1940, the defendant kept no records of the hours worked by these employees, other than is shown on the radio logs. The time recorded by the employees on the logs included at least the minimum number of hours worked, but did not include all time worked by these employees. Time worked by announcers preparing continuity and announcing remote control programs outside the studio, and time spent by control operators preparing equipment for broadcasting and operating equipment during remote control programs, was not recorded on the logs.

These employees were originally hired at weekly or monthly salaries, regardless of the number of hours worked, and continued to work on that basis up to the time of the institution of suit.

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

Related

Majchrzak v. Chrysler Credit Corp.
537 F. Supp. 33 (E.D. Michigan, 1981)
Shultz v. Circulation Sales, Inc.
301 F. Supp. 937 (E.D. Missouri, 1969)
Mitchell v. Reynolds
125 F. Supp. 337 (W.D. Arkansas, 1954)
Grant v. Bergdorf & Goodman Co.
172 F.2d 109 (Second Circuit, 1949)
McComb v. Turpin
81 F. Supp. 86 (D. Maryland, 1948)
Tringali v. Kaffee
273 A.D. 109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1947)
Bohn v. B & B Ice & Coal Co.
63 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Kentucky, 1946)
Walling v. Panther Creek Mines, Inc.
148 F.2d 604 (Seventh Circuit, 1945)
Schineck v. 386 Fourth Avenue Corp.
182 Misc. 1037 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1944)
Schmidtke v. Conesa
141 F.2d 634 (First Circuit, 1944)
Walling v. Yeakley
140 F.2d 830 (Tenth Circuit, 1944)
Schroepfer v. A. S. Abell Co.
138 F.2d 111 (Fourth Circuit, 1943)
Shain v. Armour & Co.
50 F. Supp. 907 (W.D. Kentucky, 1943)
Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co.
180 Misc. 8 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 F. Supp. 180, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walling-v-sun-pub-co-tnwd-1942.