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.

SPRING v. WASHINGTON GLASS CO.

May 29, 1957

Carl SPRING, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON GLASS COMPANY, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARSH

Carl Spring brought this action against Washington Glass Company, his former employer, under § 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney's fees. After trial and consideration of the requests and briefs of the parties, the court makes the following

 1. Washington Glass Company is a corporation organized and doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which operates a glass container manufacturing establishment in the City of Washington, Washington County, Pennsylvania, and its product is sold and distributed in interstate commerce.

 2. During a period which includes the period beginning with February 10, 1954, and ending September 11, 1955, plaintiff, Carl Spring, was employed by the defendant as a hot-end or shift foreman, with the primary duty of managing a customarily recognized department or subdivision of defendant's plant known as the Production or 'Hot-End' Department during the shift assigned to him.

 3. The defendant, during the aforesaid period, operated its plant twenty-four hours per day in three shifts of eight hours each. Its foremen were expected to work any time, e.g., when needed on extra shifts, as substitutes for sick personnel, and in case of machinery breakdown.

 4. Plaintiff was employed as a shift foreman under the terms of an oral contract providing for payment of a specified weekly salary for a workweek of unspecified hours.

 5. During the period in question, from February 10, 1954 to August 29, 1954, the plaintiff received a salary of $ 93.50 per week, and from August 29, 1954 to September 11, 1955, $ 98.00 per week.

 6. Pursuant to an agreement, production bonus payments ranging from $ 0.84 to $ 7.39 per week were regularly made by defendant to plaintiff during the period involved. These production bonus payments were not made at the sole discretion of defendant, but plaintiff was entitled thereto, weekly, pursuant to the terms of the bonus agreement. Other sums of money and property were presented by defendant to plaintiff at Christmas and on other special occasions as gifts.

 7. The plaintiff customarily and regularly supervised 7 or 8 employees in the Production Department, on an 8-hour shift, for 40 hours per week, producing defendant's products. It was also his duty to check and keep four automatic production machines running normally. In this connection it was his responsibility to make or supervise the making of all necessary adjustments or repairs to said machines in the event of a breakdown or defective production during his shift, and to see that the heating devices were maintained at the proper degree of temperature.

 8. During said period, plaintiff had the authority to discipline employees under his supervision including authority to discharge them for cause, said action being subject to reversal only if it was found to be contrary to the collective bargaining agreement covering said employees; his suggestions and recommendations as to hiring other employees were requested and given particular weight by his superiors. The final authority as to whether a person was to be hired or an employee was to be fired was vested in the plant manager.

 9. Plaintiff was under the direct supervision of a plant manager and a plant superintendent or an assistant plant superintendent.

 10. No records for the period in question were offered in evidence by either plaintiff or defendant from which could be calculated the number of hours worked by plaintiff in any workweek doing work which was not directly and closely related to executive work referred to in Regulation 541.1(a), (b), (c), (d). *fn1"

 12. Plaintiff did not customarily and regularly exercise the discretionary powers referred to in condition (d) of the Regulation. *fn3"

 13. According to the stipulation of counsel, plaintiff worked a number of hours in excess of 40 hours per week in each of the weeks shown in the stipulation, or a total of 261 overtime hours, and was paid the salary and bonus for each week as shown in said stipulation.

 14. Defendant failed to pay full compensation to plaintiff for the overtime hours he worked for ...


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.