Evening star., 1947-01-23
tween the. lttigants, but of the in
terests OF the public as well.

tereSts OF the public as well.
Public Interest Involved.
Accordingly this court in apply
ing the doctrine should not confine
its attention to the percentage rela-
tionShip that the intervals OF time
spent in walking and nake-ready
activities bear to the work week or
work day. but should also take ac-
count of the practical effect that Its
decision will have upon the employ
ment relationship and the public
interest in the light of the realities
of the industrial world"
The Supreme Courts opinion, the
Government contended, requires the
exclusion of much Of the walking
and make-ready time involved, un-
der the de minimis doctrine.
'It does not preclude a holding
that all such time, to be calculated
by this court, Is subject to the doc
trine. Clearly implicit In the opin-
ion is the proposition that each in
dividual period spent in walking or
make-ready activities is to be con-
sidered separately in applying the
de minimis rule and that only such
period as is found to be 'substan-
tial' is to be considered compensate
work time and included in comput-
ing the work week Tor overtime
compensation purposes"
The "clear import" of the Supreme
Courts decision, the brief said, "is
that an even-handed application Of
the de n1inimis doctrine is to be
made to periods of walking and
make ready activity and to periods
devoted to personal pursuits occur
ring within normal working hours. "
Employers Position Cited.
PLAINLY" the brief continued, IAN
employer is not entitled to deduct
trifiing personal pursuit periods in
computing the work week and by the
same token the employe should not
be entitled to the addition of trifling
periods of preliminary activity.
"And where, under the existing
customs and practices, there is liber-
ality on the part of the employer
in permitting employees to devote
short periods of time to personal
pursuits and needs there should be
comparable liberality in applying the
de minimis doctrine to walking and
make-ready activities. 1t may
be found that none of the periods of
walking and make-ready activity in
volved were or should be regarded
as substantial"
The Government suggested that
the fact that the Fair Labor Stand
ards Act requires employers to re-
cord periods of compensate work
time spent by their employees should
also be considered in determining
the activities to which the De
Minimis doctrine applies. Then it
said:
"The administrator, whose expe-
rienced judgment is entitled to
weight, makes it unnecessary to take
account of preliminary activities re-
quiring as much as minutes at the
beginning >and again at the end of
each day.
U. S. Regulations Given.
Furthermore, legislation and reg
ulations relating to the overtime
compensation of Government in
spectors paid by private interests
provide for the exclusion of periods
Of overtime ranging from Is min
utes to an hour"
In passing the Fair Labor Stand
ards Act, the brief said, Congress
undoubtedly did not intend to i'm
pose upon employers burden of
keeping records Of insubstantial
amounts of time, which would in
volve not only disproportionate
expense to employers but also time
checking practices objectionable to
employees : 't!@'fF :, i
'"The evidence in this case, prior
to the remand (to the District Court
by the Supreme Court, suggests
that in view of the impracticability
of recording the short periods of
time involved. such periods of time
should not be considered 'substan-
ttaf ~ sSN 80