Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/545/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:42:08+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 330 › Walling v. General Industries Co.
1. In a suit by the Wage-Hour Administrator to enjoin alleged violations of the overtime compensation requirement of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the evidence summarized in the opinion held adequate to support a finding by the district court that certain "operating engineers" who had charge of a power plant in the absence of the chief engineer, supervised the work of firemen and coal passers, received monthly salaries in excess of $200, and enjoyed privileges usually reserved for supervisory employees, were exempted by § 13(a) as employees employed in an "executive" capacity. Pp. 330 U. S. 547-550.
2. Where findings of fact made by a district court on conflicting evidence and inferences drawn therefrom are not clearly wrong, they should not be rejected by a circuit court of appeals. P. 330 U. S. 550.
3. Upon review of a judgment of a circuit court of appeals on certiorari, the respondent, without filing a cross-petition for certiorari, may seek to sustain the judgment on a ground which the circuit court of appeals rejected as well as upon that which it accepted. P. 547, n 5.
The Wage-Hour Administrator sued to enjoin alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The District Court held that the employees in question were exempt under § 13(a), and gave judgment for the employer. 60 F.Supp. 549. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the employees in question, though not exempt, had been compensated in accordance with the Act. 155 F.2d 711. This Court granted certiorari. 329 U.S. 704. Affirmed, p. 330 U. S. 550.
In a complaint filed in the District Court, petitioner charged that respondent was violating the Fair Labor Standards Act [Footnote 1] by failing to pay some of its employees time and one-half for statutory overtime, as required by § 7(a) of the Act, and asked an injunction against continued violation. Respondent denied the charge, and separately alleged that any of its employees not compensated in accordance with the requirements of § 7(a) were exempt from the Act by § 13(a).
exempt employees, and entered judgment for respondent. [Footnote 2] The Circuit Court of Appeals thought the evidence did not sustain the District Court's findings relative to the engineers' exempt status. But it thought that the District Court had also found the engineers' compensation to be in accordance with the Act. It decided that the evidence was adequate to this end, and affirmed the District Court's judgment. [Footnote 3] We granted certiorari [Footnote 4] to determine whether the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals was not inconsistent with this Court's decision on computation of overtime in Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel, 316 U. S. 572. On argument here, however, respondent continued to urge that the District Court was warranted in its findings as to the engineers' exempt status. [Footnote 5] Having heard the argument and examined the record, we agree that it was. Therefore, we need not consider further the question of computation of overtime, and proceed only to state the considerations relevant to the particular ground of our decision.
maintain the power and pressure required for continuous 24-hour operation of the plant, to avoid damage to the tremendous investment in the machinery itself, and to guard against the fearful consequences of an explosion.
During the period covered by the evidence, the powerhouse was manned by the following personnel. At the top was the chief engineer, who apparently adhered to no precise duty-hours, but was customarily present most of the morning and afternoon and subject to call, in the event of an emergency, twenty-fours a day. Directly under and responsible to him were the three "operating engineers" whose status is in issue. They worked consecutive eight or eight and one-half hour shifts, one of them being present in the powerhouse at all times. Finally, there were an unspecified number of firemen and coal-passers, who, collectively, were also on twenty-four hour duty.
was such that the immediate and continuous supervision of trained persons was indispensable, and there were concededly no other employees to give such supervision. The engineers were required to maintain constant observation of all machinery in the powerhouse, and to make regular inspections and necessary repairs. In addition, they were required to spend a small part of their time in oiling and cleaning the engines.
Walling v. General Industries Co., 60 F.Supp. 549.
Walling v. General Industries Co., 155 F.2d 711.
Respondent was entitled to make this contention here without filing a cross-petition for certiorari. Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 282 U. S. 538; Public Service Commission of Puerto Rico v. Havemeyer, 296 U. S. 506, 296 U. S. 509.
"The term 'employee employed in a bona fide executive . . . capacity' in section 13(a)(1) of the act shall mean any employee --"
"(a) whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof, and"
"(b) who customarily and regularly directs the work of other employees therein, and"
"(c) who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring or firing and as to the advancement and promotion or any other change of status of other employees will be given particular weight, and"
"(d) who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers, and"
"(e) who is compensated for his services on a salary basis at not less than $30 per week (exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities), and"
"(f) whose hours of work of the same nature as that performed by nonexempt employees do not exceed 20 percent of the number of hours worked in the work-week by the nonexempt employees under his direction; provided that this subsection (f) shall not apply in the case of an employee who is in sole charge of an independent establishment or a physically separated branch establishment."
See Helliwell v. Haberman, 140 F.2d 833, 834; Fletcher v. Grinnell Brothers, 150 F.2d 337, 340, 341; Smith v. Porter, 143 F.2d 292, 294.
Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Lawson v. United States Mining Co., 207 U. S. 1, 207 U. S. 12; Butte & Superior Copper Co. v. Clark-Montana Realty Co., 249 U. S. 12, 249 U. S. 30. See District of Columbia v. Pace, 320 U. S. 698, 320 U. S. 701.
Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Adamson v. Gilliland, 242 U. S. 350; United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U. S. 32, 247 U. S. 37-38, 247 U. S. 41.
"The District Court found as a fact that Stegman, Page, and Spooner were employed as foremen or supervisors of the department, with power to supervise the work of firemen and coal-passers in the boiler-room; that they customarily and regularly directed the work of other employees in the department, and customarily exercised discretionary powers. We think these findings are not sustained by the evidence. The work done by the engineers was highly skilled mechanical work. While the machinery was vital to the plant, dangerous, and complicated, its operation involved no exercise of discretion, but merely the proper application of the skilled engineering training which these men had received. Although the three engineers were responsible for the proper operation of the machinery during their shifts, and, as the factory manager testifies, 'in charge of management of the property,' none of them could fire or hire or give orders to any man in the boiler-room. Latteman, the chief engineer, who was present at the plant during one shift and on call 24 hours a day and seven days a week, was in full charge of the department. While Latteman might act on information from Stegman, Page, or Spooner, during the period involved, orders emanated only from him. It is not shown that Stegman, Page, or Spooner ever made any recommendation concerning the change in status of the boiler-men. It was essential to have proper steam pressure in the boiler-room, but if the three engineers desired in this connection to secure action from the firemen and coal-passers, they had to secure an order from Latteman. This evidence is not contradicted."
An independent examination of the record confirms the Court of Appeals' conclusions. It discloses that, on one or two occasions, an operating engineer tried to give orders to firemen or coal passers in the boiler room, but, in each instance, those men refused to follow them, and took their orders solely from Latteman. This falls far short at least of the regular and customary supervision required by §§ 541.1(A) and (B) of the controlling regulations to make the exemption operative.

References: v. 
 § 7
 § 13
 § 13
 § 7
 § 7
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.