Evening star., 1947-02-09

Follot0ing Is the tert OF the
opinion handed dotUn yesterday
By Feferal Judge Frank A. Picard
in the Mount Clemens Pottery
Co. portal-to-portal pay case:
Because of the interest and dis.
cussion that this case has stimu.
lated, we deem it advisable to give
a brief history of its Developments
which finally resulted in necessity
for this courts present determine
ton.
When this matter was first hearc
eco F. Supp. 146) plaintiffs were
not seeking pay for time consumed
walking to their jobs nor for pre-
liminary activities necessary for pro-
duction work. The only question
discussed by either counsel was
whether defendant company had in
structed plaintiff employees to punch
in IA minutes before the scheduled
starting times in the morning and
afternoon and punch out IA min
utes after the scheduled quitting
times at noon and afternoon.
Plaintiffs insisted that they were
expected to and did work during
these additional periods but that
this time was not computed in de-
termining whether they were ex-
ceeding the legal workweek. If true,
plaintiffs were thus being deprived
of the extra half-time for pottery
produced in hours over the legal
week
(Note: The legal work week
was A hours, October "a, 1888 to
October "a, 1899; AZ hours Octo-
ber "a. 1899 to October "a, 1910;
40 hours october "A, 1910, on.)
The masters report concluded
that the employees had not substan-
tiated their claims and we agreed
with that report in all but one par
ticular. We held that plaintiffs had
met the test required; that they had
proved that they were directed and
encouraged to reach their work
bench early in the morning and
back after lunch and actually pro-
duced pottery during these minutes
for which time was not computed.
Men Believed Actually
LabOring at Production.
We selected a figure of minutes
before tine scheduled starting time
In the morning and S minutes before
the scheduled starting time follow
ing lunch for which the employers
were not obligated to pay, including
therein, time it took plaintiffs to
walk to their respective places in
defendants plant.
For the differences between those
7 and S minutes and the time
punched we held the employer liable
if such additional minutes brought
the employe over the allowed work.
week, We so found because we
believed the men actually worked
at production labor.
The Court of Appeals (149F. I'd
46D, following rule SO 90 Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure held that
we were bound by the masters con-
clusions unless clearly erroneous"
and it was sustained by the Supreme
Court on this issue. Ordinarily
this would have ended the case then
and there.
In the masters report and record
OF the testimony, however, there was
much discussion about minutes con-
sumed walking from time clock to
workbench and for preliminary ac-
tivitieS" but counsel for both plain
tiffs and defendant used this evi-
dence solely to support their respec-
tive positions on the only question
before the court-"overtime"
Here it is well to note that in
1943, defendant contended that it
was necessary to start plaintiffs
clocking in 10 to IA minutes before
starting time because of the distance
the employees had to travel within
defendants plant to their work.
benches and because they had to
perforra lot of other preparatory"
duties after Checking in." One de-
fendant witness said it would take
6 minutes to walk 400 feet-a rate
Of less than one mile per hour.
On the other hand, and in con-
trast, plaintiffs. in 1943, mininized
time consumed in preliminary duties
such as greasing arms, putting on
aprons, gloves and small cots to pro-
tect their fingers, insisting that they
could and should do all these things
including walking" to the farthest
point in the plant in time not to
exceed 2 minutes. Arriving at their
work places, they contended, they
usually started work Immediately
In the Court of Appeals the issue
was also confined to overtime" or
time allegedly actually worked by
plaintiffs in production labor before
the scheduled starting hours in the
morning and after lunch.
Plaintiffs Petition
For Certiorari Cited.
From this status the case moved
to our highest tribunal and we cite
plaintiffs petition for certiorari as
their understanding of what had
been proven before the master, and
why they were asking the Supreme
Court to reverse the Court of Ap-
peals, and affirm this court:
THE evidence also revealed that
1t took between one minute and two
minutes from the time when the
employees checked through the time
clock cards to the time when they
undertook productive labors." EN-
phasis ours)
But that petition also reveals
plaintiffs contending:
THAT they should be paid by the
time clock cards as maintained by
the employer. The travel time be-
tween the time clocks and their
work benches as well as all other
activities after punching the time
clocks bears all the indicia of
work." citing Tennessee Coal Co. v.
Miscoda Local, 32l U. S. $50, 598
and Jewell Ridge Corp. v. Local 1886
us. 161, 164-168.
Here enters "portal-to-portap' for
the first time.
Here we find that in approach
ing the Supreme Court, plaintiffs
start out strenously urging that
this courts Judgment eliminating