Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WALLING v. REILLY

August 10, 1944

WALLING, Adm'r of Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Dept. of Labor,
v.
REILLY



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KIRKPATRICK

On the evidence, the files and records in the case, briefs and argument of counsel, the Court after due consideration makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and enters the following Decree:

Findings of Fact.

 1. L. Metcalfe Walling is the duly appointed and qualified Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor.

 2. Defendant is and was at all times herein mentioned a resident of the State of New Jersey and is and was the sole owner and operator of a manufacturing plant located at 215 Quarry Street, Fullerton, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, at which place he is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was engaged in the production of necktie, dress and parachute cloth.

 3. At all times hereinafter mentioned defendant employed and is employing approximately one hundred ten (110) employees, including approximately twenty (20) weavers, in and about his place of business in Fullerton, Pennsylvania, where they were engaged in the production of necktie, dress and parachute cloth and in processes or occupations necessary to such production.

 4. Substantially all of the cloth produced by these employees has been and is being produced for interstate commerce and has been and is shipped, delivered, transported, offered for transportation and sold in interstate commerce from defendant's place of business to other states.

 6. The weavers employed by defendant were compensated on a piece rate basis, which was applied to work done on each loom for units of 100,000 picks. A daily, weekly and bi-weekly record of hours worked was kept by defendant. The compensation of said weavers was computed bi-weekly on the basis of the two week total of picks for each loom. The total biweekly earnings were divided by the number of hours worked during the two week period to obtain the average hourly piece rate earnings.

 7. Defendant failed to determine the average hourly piece rate earnings of said weavers upon the basis of the total weekly hours divided into the total weekly earnings and record the same as the regular hourly rate.

 8. The defendant has continuously and at all times prior to the trial failed to record the total daily or weekly straight time earnings or wages of said weavers.

 9. The defendant has continuously and at all times prior to the trial failed to record the total weekly overtime excess compensation of said weavers.

 10. The contention of the defendant that the keeping of records required by the regulations would require the employment of an additional employee at a cost of $ 25 per week although not sustained by the evidence is considered irrelevant and immaterial to a determination of the issues in this case.

 Conclusions of Law.

 1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject of this action and the parties thereto, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of the Fair Labor ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.