and the representatives of the Jacobs Company and of the Defense Plant Corporation.
The activities above outlined are not 'in the movement of commerce' nor do I think that they are closely related to it. They indirectly affect commerce in that the plaintiff prepared the necessary detailed paper work and obtained the necessary information required by his employer in order that the latter might efficiently and economically erect the factory and, of course, in erecting the factory, materials would in some cases be obtained from without the state. The plaintiff, after an order had been approved, would write a covering letter and enclose it with the work order, for mailing to the contractor or subcontractor who was to do or had done the work. As pointed out in the case of Collins v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, D.C., 66 F.Supp. 424, the mere writing of a letter which is mailed to a point outside the state is not in itself interstate commerce so that, unless these letters and work orders mailed beyond the borders of the state were so closely related to the movement of commerce as to be a part of it, their existence would not bring the plaintiff within the purview of the Act. See opinion in the Collins case, supra. Moreover, it is clear that the plaintiff did not spend a great deal of his time in the actual preparation of these letters and, as pointed out above, the work in connection with the work orders was not engaging in commerce.
Since the plaintiff was neither engaged in commerce nor in the production of goods for commerce, he does not come within the purview of the Act and it is unnecessary to discuss in this opinion the question whether he belonged to one of the exempt classes under the Act.
Judgment may be entered for the defendant.
On Motion to Amend Findings.
This motion raises the single narrow question whether the plaintiff's work in collecting data, determining prices and also processing other work orders and mailing orders across state lines was production of goods or engaging in commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
As pointed out in an opinion filed this day, sur reargument, in the case of Collins v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, 229 F.Supp. 71, the writing of letters is not, per se, the production of goods. Letters may be considered 'goods' if they contain information which is sold, like any tangible article of commerce. I find no decision holding that letters sent across state lines as an incident of intrastate business are goods produced. Nor does the fact that the letters may have some influence upon an ultimate movement of goods across state lines by third persons for use in their own independent business make the employee who writes the letters engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
The motion to amend the findings is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.