Wirtz v. Keystone Readers Service, Inc.

282 F. Supp. 871, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8495
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedApril 1, 1968
DocketCiv. No. 67-74
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 282 F. Supp. 871 (Wirtz v. Keystone Readers Service, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wirtz v. Keystone Readers Service, Inc., 282 F. Supp. 871, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8495 (S.D. Fla. 1968).

Opinion

AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FULTON, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff, Secretary of Labor, seeks to enjoin the defendant, Gary Waechter, doing business as Ben Franklin Reading Club, from violating the provisions of Sections 15(a) (2), (4) and (5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. The plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of the minimum wage, record-keeping and child labor provisions of the Act during the period from January 16, 1964, to date with respect to defendant’s employment of “student salesmen.” Exemption from said requirements is claimed by the defendant on the alternative grounds that these so-called “student salesmen” are “outside salesmen,” or because defendant’s business is a “retail service establishment.”

This cause was tried before the Court without a jury, at which time the Court heard testimony of witnesses and received evidence. The Court having considered this testimony and evidence, together with the stipulations and memoranda of law submitted by the parties, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The defendant, Gary Waechter, resides in Hallandale, Florida, and since January 16, 1964, has conducted business as Ben Franklin Reading Club; this business sells magazine subscriptions on an installment basis and processes, collects and services such subscription sales.

2. The employer’s gross receipts for each year since January 16, 1964 have been less than $250,000.

3. The defendant Waechter actively manages, supervises and directs the affairs and operations of Ben Franklin Reading Club and has done so at all times since January 16, 1964. Hence the term “employer” shall hereinafter be used to include both Waechter and Ben Franklin Reading Club.

4. The employer does maintain, and has maintained since January 16, 1964, an office on N.E. 19th Avenue in North Miami Beach, Florida. An additional office was maintained by employer during part of 1965 and 1966 at 775 N.E. 79 Street, Miami, Florida.

5. Since January 16, 1964, the employer’s magazine sales operations have been conducted pursuant to a Local Franchise Agreement with Keystone Readers Service, Inc., which agreement authorized the employer to sell magazine subscriptions in Florida under the name of Ben Franklin Reading Club. On July 1, 1966, Keystone assigned all its rights under said agreement to John L. Glover of Atlanta, Georgia, who had a regional franchise agreement with Keystone.

6. The employer’s Local Franchise Agreement with Keystone, and later Glover, provides that the employer agrees:

To accept and forward subscriptions authorized only with the understanding that they are subject to acceptance or rejection by Keystone and publishers and to cancellation in the event of failure of the subscriber to continue payment on the contract. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, Local Franchise Agreement, paragraph 6(j) on page 5 thereof.)

7. The employer has employed and does employ boys of high school age as “student salesmen,” who work after school and on Saturdays while school is in session, and full work-weeks during vacations.

8. In some instances defendant Waechter interviews, hires and trains these “student salesmen.” Otherwise the boys are interveiwed, hired and trained under defendant Waechter’s supervision. These “student salesmen” work under defendant Waeehter’s direction and control in soliciting subscription sales. They do [873]*873not attempt to solicit sales for other competitive magazine subscription services.

9. The employer’s office has maintained and now maintains no record of the hours, either daily or weekly, that are worked by the “student salesmen.” (TR 55-6)

10. The employer’s “student salesmen” are paid $3.00 per order, and if they reach ten orders in a given week, they are paid $4.00 per order. If these “student salesmen” work a complete week of two hours after school, plus Saturday, they receive a “guaranteed” wage of $20.80. They are paid by checks issued by Ben Franklin Reading Club, and records of the employer’s payment of these checks are maintained by the employer.

11. These “student salesmen” report daily to the employer’s office. After a briefing by the employer or under his supervision, they are transported by car by “student managers” to their respective territories, where they fan out in given neighborhoods to solicit magazine subscription sales door-to-door.

At each house, the student salesman gives a memorized sales talk, which he has been taught by the employer, and attempts to have interested potential customers sign a printed “order card.” This card bears the wording:

Please enter my order for magazines listed above. I am to receive all magazines by mail. AT A TOTAL COST OF 41 CENTS PER WEEK, PAYABLE MONTHLY, FOR 60 MONTHS. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3)

No money is exchanged, for the “student salesmen” are instructed not to discuss with or accept payment from the potential customer.

12. At a designated time and place— usually at or after 7:00 P.M. — the “student salesmen” are picked up by their respective student managers and transported back to employer’s office, where they turn in their signed order cards.

13. Some time thereafter, the student managers revisit each person who had signed an “order card” and at that time the student managers explain the payment plan which must be followed in order to obtain the employer’s magazine subscriptions — a different payment plan than the one described on the “order card.” If a customer assents to this accelerated payment plan, the student manager and the customer execute a more detailed form which is denominated a “contract.”

14. The “contract form” which must be executed by the customer in the presence of the student manager bears the following language:

This contract is subject to acceptance by the Company and the Publishers.
******
NO VERBAL ARRANGEMENTS RECOGNIZED (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4.)

15. The student managers submit their executed “contracts” to the employer’s offices, where the “contracts” are later verified by telephone.

16. From the employer’s offices, various reports reflecting new verified orders for magazines, collections on installment contracts, and checks for money collected are and have been transmitted regularly to Atlanta, Georgia. Until July 1, 1966, these reports and checks were mailed to Keystone’s office in Atlanta; since that date the reports and checks have been mailed to Glover in Atlanta.

17. The employer has obtained and does obtain the subscription contract forms and various report forms described above from Keystone and Glover. Said cards and reports are in form approved by Keystone in Philadelphia. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, Local Franchise Agreement, paragraph 6(d) on page 4 thereof.

18. From Atlanta, the magazine orders and payments are and have been transmitted to Keystone in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the orders are processed through computers. The computers reject orders which bear incorrect addresses, incorrect pricing or other errors. Any order rejected by the computers is returned to the employer, who generally corrects the error and re-submits the corrected order in the same manner.

[874]*87419.

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

Related

Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor
772 P.2d 934 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)
Wirtz v. Keystone Readers Service, Inc.
418 F.2d 249 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 F. Supp. 871, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wirtz-v-keystone-readers-service-inc-flsd-1968.