11. Samuel Gualtieri and Clair Jones, both male employees, were engaged in job classifications designated as hand-shear operator-set-up. They not only performed the duties of cutting the lithographed metal, but also performed the duties of setting up and adjusting their machines and the machines of the other female shear operators. These male hand-shear operator-set-ups were paid an hourly rate in excess of the female waste-shear operators.
12. Commencing workweek ending March 26, 1972, to May 1, 1973, Gloria Smith was employed as a hand-shear operator-set-up and regularly and recurringly performed the same duties involving adjustment and set up work as did Samuel Gualtieri and Clair Jones.
13. During the period commencing with the workweek ending March 26, 1972, to May 1, 1973, Gloria Smith received $2.15 per hour which is five cents per hour less than the normal starting rate for males in that job classification, and it is further stipulated that during the period of workweeks ending March 26, 1972, to May 1, 1973, Gloria Smith had been paid the sum of $110 less than the male hand-shear operator-set-up.
14. The differential in pay for the four female employees referred to above resulted from an improper application of starting rate for the female operators.
15. Pursuant to a schedule which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit A, and to the judgment entered by the parties attached hereto and marked Exhibit B, the defendant agrees that it will pay the sum of $2432 to the plaintiff, which sum is due to the four female operators as a result of the disparity in the rates of pay between the female decorator-strippers and the male decorator-strippers and the female hand-shear operator-set-up and the male hand-shear operator-set-up in the defendant's establishment.
Conclusions of Law
1. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this cause of action pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.), herein referred to as the Act.
2. Defendant's employees, as described herein were "engaged in commerce" and "in the production of goods for commerce" and included employees handling or otherwise working on such goods within the meaning of the Act.
3. Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of section 3(s) (1) of the Act under the Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments of 1966 (80 Stat. 830), 29 U.S.C. § 203(s) (1). Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259 (3 Cir. 1970), cert. den. 398 U.S. 905, 26 L. Ed. 2d 64, 90 S. Ct. 1696.
4. The statutory provision for an injunction against future violations and for the payment of wages due its employees as a result of the company's past violations are requirements imposed for violation of the statute and are remedies appropriate to its enforcement. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., supra ; Shultz v. American Can Co., 424 F.2d 356 (8 Cir. 1970); Hodgson v. Oil City Hospital, Inc., 363 F. Supp. 419 (DC WD Pa. 1972) 20 WH 1094.
5. The work performed by male decorator-strippers and female decorator-strippers required substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility and were performed under similar working conditions. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., supra ; Shultz v. American Can Co., supra ; Hodgson v. Lancaster Hospital Association, 20 WH 139 (ED Pa. July 1971); Hodgson v. Oil City Hospital, Inc., supra.
6. The work performed by males classified as hand-shear operator-set-up and females classified as hand-shear operator-set-up required substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility and were performed under similar working conditions. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., supra ; Shultz v. American Can Co., supra ; Hodgson v. Lancaster Hospital Association, supra ; Hodgson v. Oil City Hospital, Inc., supra.
7. In considering the substantial equality of the effort expended by males and females, both physical and mental effort required to be performed on the job must be weighed. Hodgson v. Daisy Manufacturing Co., 317 F. Supp. 538 (WD Ark. 1970).
8. The occasional performance of duties of the male employees above referred to and the female employees above referred to requiring greater physical effort does not render the jobs unequal which are otherwise equal. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., supra ; Hodgson v. Behrens Drug Co., 475 F.2d 1041 (1973).
9. The higher wage rates paid by the defendant to the males in these classifications are not justified by any exceptions to the Act. Hodgson v. Pacific Telephone Co., 20 WH 411 and 454 (USDC ND Cal., Dec., 1971); Hodgson v. Fairmont Supply Co., 454 F.2d 490 (CA4, 1972).
10. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amounts of the back wages due the four employees from the median dates of the violation to the date of the judgment of this court at the rate of six per cent per annum. Hodgson v. Wheaton Glass Co., 446 F.2d 527.
11. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction permanently enjoining the defendant from violating the provisions of section 6 of the Act, and from withholding payment of the minimum wage compensation due employees under the Act. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259; Hodgson v. Lancaster Hospital Association, supra ; Hodgson v. Oil City Hospital, Inc., 363 F. Supp. 419 (DC WD Pa., 1972) 20 WH 1094.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.