Source: http://openjurist.org/183/f2d/507
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 17:01:35
Document Index: 62812426

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 216', '§ 251', '§ 252', '§ 326', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 2']

183 F2d 507 Bumpus v. Remington Arms Co | OpenJurist
183 F. 2d 507 - Bumpus v. Remington Arms Co	Home183 f2d 507 bumpus v. remington arms co
183 F2d 507 Bumpus v. Remington Arms Co 183 F.2d 507
BUMPUS et al.v.REMINGTON ARMS CO., Inc
Otto Schmid, Kansas City, Mo., Robert L. Robertson, Henry A. Riederer, and Fred J. Freel, all of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief, for appellants.
Horace F. Blackwell, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., W. B. DeRiemer, Wilmington, Del., and Samuel W. Sawyer, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief, for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and RIDDICK and STONE, Circuit Judges.
This is an action for overtime wages by appellant "and others similarly situated" who are or have been in the employment of defendant in its business of manufacturing ammunition for the United States at Lake City, Missouri. To a first amended petition which was further amended by interlineation, a motion to dismiss, to strike and for more definite statement was filed. Upon this motion, the action was dismissed, D.C., 74 F.Supp. 788, D.C., 77 F.Supp. 94, and plaintiff appeals.1
This action was brought under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), on January 21, 1947, for time spent in reaching and leaving work "in order to change into and from the clothing required by the defendant to be worn at their work, and to prepare their work and machinery for actual operation, to obtain and turn in brass, tools, equipment, guns, ammunition and other materials and equipment incidental to their employment at such time and place." Also, for an equal amount as liquidated damages, for a reasonable attorney's fee, and for costs.
On May 14, 1947, the Portal to Portal Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 84, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq., became effective. Thereafter, plaintiff amended her petition with the purpose of bringing her action within the exceptions stated in section 2 of that Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 252, by pleading a contract and a custom, and within Executive Order No. 9240, 7 R.R. 7159 amended 7 R.R. 7419, 40 U.S.C.A. § 326 note.
The trial court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied. This holding is sustained by the decision in the Powell and companion cases. The grounds upon which the court dismissed this action were (a) that the Portal to Portal Act of May 14, 1947, was valid; and (b) that plaintiff had not brought herself within any of the exceptions in that Act, namely, (1) a written or unwritten contract in effect at the time of such activity, § 252(a) (1); or (2) a custom or practice in effect at such time not inconsistent with a written or unwritten contract, § 252(a) (2).
The broad issues presented by appellant on this appeal are: (I) invalidity of Portal to Portal Act as applied to her; and (II) the amended petition states grounds for recovery under Section 2 of that Act.
I. Validity of Portal to Portal Act.
The challenges to validity of the Act are (1) because an invasion of judicial powers, and (2) because violative of the Fifth Amendment. The latter challenge is based upon two contentions, namely, that the Act denies due process because it is arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and oppressive; and that it deprives appellant of property without due process.
The validity of the Act has been determined by many decisions in the Courts of Appeals and in the District Courts.2 The Courts of Appeals include the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits.3 Certiorari has been denied repeatedly.3 In all instances, the validity of the Act has been upheld, although attacked on all of the grounds presented here as well as others. As stated by Chief Judge Magruder in the Manosky case, 177 F.2d at page 532, "* * * it may now be taken as settled that § 2(a) is constitutional."4
In this state of the decisions, it is pointless to do more than say we have examined carefully the issues presented here, the authorities cited by appellant, and the herein cited Courts of Appeals decisions, and that we are in agreement with the reasonings in these Courts of Appeals cases in our determination that the Act is impervious to these attacks of appellant.
II. Portal to Portal Act.
After stating generally the character of services covered by the suit, the amended petition alleged that all such "was to be paid and compensated for by defendant by reason of and under the terms of the express provisions of the contract or agreement hereinbefore referred to, as well as other agreements or contracts executed for the benefit of plaintiffs, all of which were in full force and effect at the time of such work and activities; and that at such time and for a long time prior thereto there was and had been in full force and effect a custom or practice at defendant's establishment consistent with the contracts referred to above providing for full payment and compensation to the plaintiff and such other similarly situated employees for all of the time, work, exertion and activities mentioned herein; and by and under which said custom or practice defendant had for a long time prior to and during the period of the contracts mentioned herein customarily and habitually paid employees similarly situated for all of the time, work, exertion and activities mentioned herein."
These quoted allegations are followed by: "Some of the provisions of the express contracts referred to herein were as follows * * *" The matters set forth are quotations from a contract of November 20, 1940 (with amendments) between appellee and the United States, from "Information for Employees" published by appellee in 1941, and from "Service Manual" issued by appellee in 1941.