Source: https://openjurist.org/195/f2d/577/tobin-v-alstate-const-co
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:30:35+00:00

Document:
Rehearing Denied May 5, 1952.
S. A. Schreckengaust, Jr., Harrisburg, Pa. (McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
William A. Lowe, Washington, D.C. (William S. Tyson, Sol., Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., and Joseph D. Mladinov, Attorney, United States Department of Labor, all of Washington, D.C., Ernest N. Votaw, Regional Atty., United States Department of Labor, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARIS, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
Where an employer is engaged in the production and application of a bituminous material used in the repair and maintenance of highways over which interstate commerce moves, are those off-the-road employees who perform work essential to the production of the material 'engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce' within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.?
Alstate concedes that those of its employees who actually apply the amesite to the highways or other instrumentalities of commerce are within the scope of the Act; but contends that its off-the-road employees, i.e., the mixers and other plant employees who produce the amesite, do not have such immediacy of participation in interstate commerce so as to bring them within its coverage. We cannot subscribe to this contention.
The Supreme Court has also held: 'Vehicular roads and bridges are as indispensable to the interstate movement of persons and goods as railroad tracks and bridges are to interstate transportation by rail. If they are used by persons and goods passing between the various States, they are instrumentalities of interstate commerce.' Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 1943, 318 U.S. 125, 129, 63 S.Ct. 494, 497, 87 L.Ed. 656.
With respect to Alstate's contention that the sweep of the injunction is too broad in that it covers all of Alstate's employees, including those engaged in original construction and private projects unconnected with interstate commerce, it is answered by the very language of the injunction. The latter applies only to those 'engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of the Act'. (Emphasis supplied.) The District Court found that, during the period involved, none of Alstate's work on interstate facilities involved original construction, and that there was no segregation of work performed by the off-the-road employees. In doing so it specifically held, and properly so, that 'original construction is definitely beyond the contemplation of the Act.' As long as any individual employee spends a substantial part of the work-week in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, he is entitled to the full benefits of the Act. Southern California Freight Lines v. McKeown, 9 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 890. At present, all of Alstate's employees fall into this category.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
1 Prohibiting violations of the minimum wage and maximum hour provisions of the Act.
2 Prohibiting violations of the record-keeping provision of the Act.
'No employer shall * * * employ any of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce * * * for a workweek longer than forty hours * * * unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of (forty) the hours * * * at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.' 29 U.S.C.A. § 207(a).
'Every employer * * * shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him, and shall preserve such records for such periods of time, and shall make such reports therefrom to the Administrator as he shall prescribe by regulation or order * * * .' 29 U.S.C.A. § 211(c). See also 29 C.F.R.Part 516.
5 The Secretary of the Department of Labor was substituted as a party plaintiff by stipulation.
6 E. C. Schroeder Co., Inc. v. Clifton, 10 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 385, relied upon by Alstate, is not in point. It involved the application of the Act to employees engaged in the production, at the quarry, of rock which was later used on railroad and highway projects. However, the segments of railroad and highway on which the rock was used were not part of existing systems, but were new segments, not yet dedicated to use in interstate commerce and clearly beyond the contemplation of the Act. Kelly v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., 3 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 555.
The District Courts which have considered the problem have not been in agreement. See, for example, McComb v. Trimmer. D.C.N.J. 1949, 85 F.Supp. 565. Contra: McComb v. Carter, Civil No. 745, E.D. Va., July 31, 1948 (16 Labor Cases § 69,964). The point was considered in Walling v. Craig, D.C., Minn., 1943, 53 F.Supp. 479, 483, and decided in favor of Alstate's position. However, this was before the Administrator's assertion, based upon the Circuit Court decisions in the so-called 'ice cases' (see footnote 7 infra), that these employees were covered. See 29 C.F.R. § 776.21(b) (1950 Supp. 149).
7 See also Hamlet Ice Co. v. Fleming, 4 Cir., 1942, 127 F.2d 165, certiorari denied, 317 U.S. 634, 63 S.Ct. 29, 87 L.Ed. 511; Chapman v. Home Ice Co. of Memphis, 6 Cir., 1943, 136 F.2d 353, certiorari denied, 320 U.S. 761, 64 S.Ct. 72, 88 L.Ed. 454.

References: § 201
 v. 
 v. 
 § 207
 § 211
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 69
 v. 
 § 776
 v. 
 v.