Source: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&mc=true&n=pt29.3.794&r=PART&ty=HTML
Timestamp: 2020-04-05 14:47:51
Document Index: 155932110

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', 'arts 776', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', '§794', 'art 776', '§794', '§778', '§778', '§778', 'art 778', '§778', 'art 516', '§516']

Title 29 → Subtitle B → Chapter V → Subchapter B → Part 794
§794.106 Statutory definition of “enterprise.”
§794.107 “Establishment” distinguished.
§794.108 Scope of enterprise must be known before exemption tests can be applied.
§794.109 Statutory basis for inclusion of activities in enterprise.
§794.110 Activities excluded from the enterprise by the statute.
§794.111 General characteristics of the statutory enterprise.
“Independently Owned and Controlled Local Enterprise”
§794.112 Only independent and local enterprises qualify for exemption.
§794.114 The enterprise must be “independently owned and controlled.”
§794.115 “Independently owned.”
§794.116 “Independently * * * controlled.”
§794.117 Effect of franchises and other arrangements.
§794.118 Effect of unrelated activities.
§794.127 Exemption conditioned on making 75 percent of sales within the State.
§794.128 Sales made to out-of-State customers.
§794.129 Sales “made within the State” not limited to noncovered activity.
Application of Exemption to Employees
§794.135 Employees who are exempt.
§794.136 Employees whose activities may qualify them for exemption.
§794.137 Effect of activities other than “wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products.”
§794.139 Exempt and nonexempt activities in the workweek.
§794.140 Compensation requirements for a workweek under section 7(b)(3).
§794.141 Workweeks when hours worked do not exceed 12 in any day or 56 in the week; compensation requirements.
§794.142 Special compensation when overtime in excess of 12 daily or 56 weekly hours is worked in the workweek.
§794.143 Work exempt under another section of the Act.
§794.144 Records to be maintained.
Source: 35 FR 16510, Oct. 22, 1970, unless otherwise noted.
The term “enterprise” is defined in section 3(r) of the Act. That definition (insofar as it affects a wholesale or bulk petroleum distributor) is as follows:
“Enterprise” means the related activities performed (either through unified operation or common control) by any person or persons for a common business purpose, and includes all such activities whether performed in one or more establishments or by one or more corporate or other organizational units including departments of an establishment operated through leasing arrangements, but shall not include the related activities performed for such enterprise by an independent contractor: Provided, That within the meaning of this subsection, a retail or service establishment which is under independent ownership shall not be deemed to be so operated or controlled as to be other than a separate and distinct enterprise by reason of any arrangement, which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, an agreement (1) that it will sell, or sell only, certain goods specified by a particular manufacturer, distributor, or advertiser, or (2) that it will join with other such establishments in the same industry for the purpose of collective purchasing, or (3) that it will have the exclusive right to sell the goods or use the brand name of a manufacturer, distributor, or advertiser within a specified area, or by reason of the fact that it occupies premises leased to it by a person who also leases premises to other retail or service establishments.
The “enterprise” referred to in the section 7(b)(3) exemption is to be distinguished from an “establishment”. As used in the Act, the term “establishment”, which is not specially defined therein, refers to a “distinct physical place of business” rather than to “an entire business or enterprise” which may include several separate places of business. (See Phillips v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490; Mitchell v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 352 U.S. 1027; 95 Congressional Record 12505, 12579, 14877; H. Rept. No. 1453, 81st Cong., first session, p. 25.) It will be noted from the definition of “enterprise” in section 3(r), as set forth in §794.106, that the activities of the enterprise may be “performed in one or more establishments,” and section 7(b)(3) specifies that the enterprises to which its exemption requirements are applicable will include “an enterprise with more than one bulk storage establishment.”
The scope of the “enterprise” as defined by section 3(r) of the Act must be ascertained before it is possible to apply the tests for exemption contained in section 7(b)(3) which are based on the dollar volume of sales of the “enterprise”. The activities included in the enterprise must be known, and any activities not a part of the enterprise must be excluded before the dollar volume of sales derived from the activities of the enterprise can be computed.
The “enterprise” for purposes of enterprise coverage under section 3(s) and the exemption provision in section 7(b)(3), is defined in section 3(r) (§794.106) in terms of the activities in which it is engaged. All the “related activities” which are “performed * * * by any person or persons for a common business purpose” are included if they are performed “either through unified operation or common control.” This is true even if they are performed by more than one person, or in more than one establishment or by more than one corporate or other organizational unit. The definition specifically includes as a part of the enterprise, departments of an establishment operated through leasing arrangements. These statutory criteria are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
The circumstances under which certain activities will be excluded from the “enterprise” referred to in the Act are made clear by the definition quoted in §794.106. The definition distinguishes between the related activities performed through unified operation and common control for a common business purpose by the participants in the enterprise, and activities which are related to these activities but are performed for the enterprise by a bona fide independent contractor (for example, an independent accounting or auditing firm). The latter activities are expressly excluded from the “enterprise” as defined. In addition, the definition contains a proviso detailing certain circumstances under which a retail or service establishment under independent ownership will not lose its status as a separate and distinct enterprise by reason of certain franchise and other arrangements which it may enter into with others. This proviso, the effect of which is more fully explained in parts 776 and 779 of this chapter, may be important to wholesale or bulk distributors of petroleum products in determining whether the effect of particular arrangements which they may make with retailers of their products will be to include activities of the latter with their own activities in the same enterprise for purposes of the Act.
As defined in the Act, the term “enterprise” is roughly descriptive of a business rather than of an establishment or of an employer although on occasion the three may coincide. The enterprise, however, is not necessarily coextensive with the entire business activities of an employer. The enterprise may consist of a single establishment which may be operated by one or more employers; or it may be composed of a number of establishments which may be operated by one or more employers. On the other hand, a single employer may operate more than one enterprise. The Act treats as separate enterprises different businesses which are unrelated to each other and lack any common business purpose, even if they are operated by the same employer.
The legislative history of the exemption (§794.101) shows that the proponents of an amendment to provide the relief which it grants from the overtime pay provisions of the Act were organizations of independent local merchants who did not as a rule engage extensively in interstate operations such as those typical of major oil companies, and who functioned primarily at the local level in distributing petroleum products at wholesale or in bulk. As a result the exemption provided by the Act, like that requested, was limited to enterprises which are “local” (§794.113) and are “independently owned and controlled” (§§794.114-794.118).
Another requirement for exemption under section 7(b)(3) is that the enterprise must be “independently owned and controlled”. Since this requirement is in the conjunctive, it must be established that the enterprise which is engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products is both independently owned and independently controlled. (Wirtz v. Lunsford, 404 F. 2d 693 (C.A. 6).) At the hearing before the Senate Labor Subcommittee, when the amendment was proposed which eventually was incorporated in the Act as section 13(b)(10) by the 1961 amendments (later repealed by the 1966 amendments to the Act and replaced by section 7(b)(3)), a spokesman for proponents of the amendment made the following statement, which bears on this requirement for exemption:
The designation “independent” as applied to an oil jobber means that he owns his own office, bulk storage, and delivery facilities; pays his own personnel, and in all respects conducts his business as any other independent businessman.
It also means that the jobber is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by any so-called major oil company, although the jobber may sell the branded products of such a company.
Some jobbers own service stations which they lease to independent dealers and a small percentage of jobbers may operate one or more service stations with their own salaried personnel. (Senate Hearings on the Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 87th Cong., first session, p. 411.)
It appears, therefore, that the purpose of the requirement limiting the exemption to the enterprises which are “independently owned and controlled,” is to confine the exemption to those petroleum jobbers who own their own facilities and equipment and who are not subsidiaries nor controlled by any producer, refinery, terminal supplier or so-called major oil company. (See Wirtz v. Lunsford, cited above.) The fact that the petroleum jobber sells a branded product of a major oil company will not, of itself, affect the status of his enterprise as one which is “independently owned and controlled”. So also the fact that the jobber owns gasoline service stations, which he leases or which he operates himself, will not affect the status of his enterprise as being “independently owned and controlled”.
Ownership of the enterprise may be vested in an individual petroleum jobber, or a partnership, or a corporation, so long as such ownership is not shared by a major oil company, or other producer, refiner, distributor or supplier of petroleum products, so as to affect the independent ownership of the enterprise. As noted in §794.114, an enterprise will not be considered independently owned where it does not own its own office, bulk storage, and delivery facilities. The enterprise may also not be considered “independently owned” where it does not own its stock-in-trade. (See Wirtz v. Lunsford, 404 F.2d 693 (C.A. 6).) It is recognized that, in the ordinary course of business dealings, an independently owned enterprise may purchase its goods on credit and this, of course, will not affect its characterization as being “independently owned” within the meaning of the exemption. However, there may well be a question as to whether the enterprise is “independently owned” where the enterprise receives its petroleum products on consignment and the supplier lays claim to the ownership of the account receivable. Of possible relevance also is the intent evident in the statutory language to provide exemption only for an enterprise which can meet the specified tests which depend on “the sales of such enterprise.” The determination in such cases, as in other cases involving questions of independent ownership, will necessarily depend on all the facts.
As explained in §794.114, the enterprise in addition to being independently owned must also be “independently controlled.” The test here is whether the individual, partnership, or corporation which owns the enterprise also controls the enterprise as an independent businessman, free of control by any so-called major oil company or other person engaged in the petroleum business. Control by others may be evidenced by ownership; but control may exist in the absence of any ownership. For example where an enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products enters into franchise or other arrangements which have the effect of restricting the products it distributes, the prices it may charge, or otherwise controlling the activities of the enterprise in those respects which are the common attributes of an independent businessman, these facts may establish that the enterprise is not “independently controlled” as required by the exemption under section 7(b)(3). (Wirtz v. Lunsford, 404 F. 2d 693 (C.A. 6).)
Whether a franchise or other contractual arrangement affects the status of the enterprise as “an independently owned and controlled * * * enterprise,” depends upon all the facts including the terms of the agreements and arrangements between the parties as well as the other relationships that have been established. The term “franchise” is not susceptible of precise definition. While it is clear that in every franchise a business surrenders some rights, it is equally clear that every franchise does not necessarily deprive an enterprise of its character as an independently owned and operated business. This matter was the subject of legislative consideration in connection with other provisions of the 1961 amendments to the Act. The Senate Report on the amendments, in discussing the effects of franchises and similar arrangements on the scope of the “enterprise” under section 3(r) of the Act, stated as follows:
There may be a number of different types of arrangements established in such cases. The key in each case may be found in the answer to the question, “Who receives the profits, suffers the losses, sets the wages and working conditions of employees, or otherwise manages the business in those respects which are the common attributes of an independent businessman operating a business for profit?”
In all of these cases if it is found on the basis of all the facts and circumstances that the arrangements are so restrictive as to products, prices, profits, or management as to deny the “franchised” establishment the essential prerogative of the ordinary independent businessman, the establishment, the dealer, or concessionaire will be considered an integral part of the related activities of the enterprise which grants the franchise, rights or concession. (S. Rep. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 42.)
Thus there may be a number of different types of arrangements established in such cases and the determination as to whether the arrangements have the effect of depriving the enterprise of its independent ownership or control will necessarily depend on all the facts. The fact that the distributor hires and controls the employees engaged in distribution of the product does not establish the requisite independence of the distributor; it is only one factor to be considered (Wirtz v. Lunsford, 404 F. 2d 693 (C.A. 6).) Ultimately the determination of the precise scope of such arrangements and their effect upon the independent ownership and control of the enterprise under section 7(b)(3), as well as on the question whether such arrangements result in creating a larger enterprise, rests with the courts.
The term “independently owned and controlled” has reference to independence of ownership and control by others. Accordingly, the fact that the petroleum jobber may himself engage in other businesses which are not related to the enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products, will not affect the question whether the petroleum enterprise is independently owned or controlled. For example, the fact that the wholesale or bulk petroleum distributor also owns or controls a wholly sep- arate tourist lodge enterprise or job printing business will not affect the status of his enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products as an “independently controlled” enterprise.
A further requirement of the section 7(b)(3) exemption is that more than 75 percent of the sales of the enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products (measured by annual dollar volume) must be made “within the State in which such enterprise is located.” This means that over 75 percent of the annual dollar volume of sales must be from sales to customers within the same State in which the enterprise is located. If 25 percent or more of its sales volume is from sales to customers outside the State of its location, the requirement is not met and the enterprise cannot qualify for exemption.
Whether the sale of goods or services is made to an out-of-State customer is a question of fact. In order for a customer to be considered an out-of-State customer, some specific relationship between him and the seller has to exist to indicate his out-of-State character. On the one hand, sales made to the casual cash-and-carry customer (such as at a gasoline station owned or operated by the enterprise), who, for all practical purposes, is indistinguishable from the mass of customers who visit the establishment, are sales made within the State even though the seller knows or has reason to believe, because of his proximity to the State line or because he is frequented by tourists, that some of the customers who visit his establishment reside outside the State. If the customer is of that type, sales made to him are sales made within the State even if the seller knows in the particular instance that the customer resides outside the State. On the other hand, a sale is made to an out-of-State customer and therefore, is not a sale made “within the State” in which the enterprise is located, if delivery of the goods is made outside that State, or if the relationship with the customer is such as to indicate his out-of-State character. Such a relationship would exist, for example, where an out-of-State company in the regular course of dealing picks up the petroleum products at the bulk storage station of the enterprise and transports them out of the State in its own trucks.
Sales to customers located in the same State as the establishment are sales made “within the State” even though such sales may constitute activity within the interstate commerce coverage of the Act, as where the sale (a) is made pursuant to prior orders from customers for goods to be obtained from outside the State; (b) contemplates the purchase of goods from outside the State to fill a customer's orders; or (c) is made to a customer for his use in interstate or foreign commerce or in the production of goods for such commerce.
If an enterprise engaged in distribution of petroleum products satisfies all the conditions specified in section 7(b)(3) as previously discussed, the partial exemption provided by this section from the Act's general overtime pay requirements will be applicable to all employees employed by their employer in activities of the enterprise for which the exemption was intended if, but only if, such employees are compensated in accordance with the compensation requirements of section 7(b)(3) (see §794.100).
The activities for which the section 7(b)(3) partial exemption was intended are discussed generally in §§794.103 through 794.104. In accordance with the principles there set forth, those employees employed in an enterprise which qualifies for application of the exemption, who are engaged in the storage and delivery of petroleum products for the enterprise, and those employees whose work is required for the performance of the activities in the wholesale or bulk distribution of the petroleum products or the related activities customarily performed as an incident to or in conjunction with such distribution in the enterprises of the industry which distributes such products, are employees for whom the employer may take the exemption provided they are paid in accordance with the special compensation provisions of section 7(b)(3). Thus, so long as these payment requirements are met, the exemption is applicable not only to such employees as drivers, helpers, loaders, dispatchers, and warehousemen engaged in the bulk delivery and storage of petroleum products, but also to such employees as office, management, and sales personnel, maintenance, custodial, protective personnel, and any others, who engage in related functions customarily carried on by such enterprises in the industry in conjunction with the wholesale and bulk distribution of the petroleum products.
As previously noted, in some cases the related activities performed through unified operation or common control for a common business purpose which are included in the enterprise under the definition in section 3(r) of the Act may include activities other than the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products. Examples are tire recapping or gasoline station services, the sale and servicing of oil burners, or the distribution of coal, ice, feed, building supplies, paint, etc. In some instances, as in the case of oil-burner servicing, these other activities are customarily performed as an incident to or in conjunction with the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products in the enterprises of the industry engaged in such distribution. As indicated in §794.104, employees of the enterprise who engage in such activities are within the general scope of the exemption. However, activities which are not customary practices of enterprises in the industry of wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products are not within the scope of the intent of the section 7(b)(3) exemption. For example, construction activities, operation of a sporting goods store, scrap paper and metal activities, the operation of a general repair garage, etc., are not the type of activities for which the section 7(b)(3) exemption was intended. Thus, where an enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products operates a general repair garage, a mechanic servicing the automobiles and trucks brought to the garage by customers will not for that reason be within the exemption provided by section 7(b)(3), although the exemption provided by section 13(a)(2) may apply to him if the garage qualifies as an exempt retail or service establishment under the tests provided in that section of the Act. On the other hand, mechanics employed by an enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products for the purpose of keeping the distribution equipment of the enterprise in good repair would come within the 7(b)(3) exemption.
The general nature of the activities of a wholesale or bulk petroleum distribution enterprise in which an employee must be engaged in order to come within the intent of the section 7(b)(3) exemption is discussed in §§794.136 through 794.137. In each case where an employee of the enterprise is engaged for a substantial portion of his workweek in activities which do not appear to be a part of the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products, it will be necessary to examine such activities and the manner and extent of their performance to determine whether they are included in or are foreign to the activities customarily performed as an incident to or in conjunction with such distribution in the enterprises of the industry which distributes such products. If they are foreign to the activities thus customarily performed, engagement in them by the employee for a substantial portion of his workweek will render section 7(b)(3) inapplicable to him for that workweek. On the other hand, where an employee, who is otherwise engaged in the exempt activities (the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products, including activities which are a necessary part thereof, and in activities customarily performed in the enterprises of the industry as an incident thereto or in conjunction therewith), devotes an insubstantial amount of time (for administrative purposes, not more than 20 percent in a workweek) to these foreign activities, the section 7(b)(3) exemption will not for that reason be considered inapplicable to him.
(a) Exemption of an employee in any workweek under section 7(b)(3) is expressly conditioned on and limited by the special compensation provisions which it contains. These are set forth in full text in §794.100. They require payment to the employee of compensation at specified rates for certain periods within the workweek when such periods are included in his hours of work. Their application requires an increase of at least 50 percent in the minimum wage rate otherwise applicable to the employee in such workweek “for employment in excess of forty hours” and, in addition, if such employment is “in excess of twelve hours in any workday, or * * * in excess of fifty-six hours in any workweek, as the case may be,” the employee must be paid overtime compensation “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed” for all hours worked in the workweek in excess of the specified daily standard or in excess of the specified weekly standard, whichever is the greater number of overtime hours. The sections following discuss separately the application of these provisions to workweeks when the employee's hours of work do not exceed the daily or weekly standard specified in section 7(b)(3), and to workweeks when hours in excess of the daily or the weekly standard are worked.
(b) The special compensation requirements of section 7(b)(3) apply to an employee otherwise eligible for the exemption whenever he works more than 40 hours in a workweek for an enterprise described in and operating under this subsection. In any workweek in which the employee does not work more than 40 hours for his employer only the minimum wage requirements of section 6 are applicable. This is because section 7(b)(3) operates only as an exemption from the requirement of section 7(a) that compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the employee's regular rate must be paid for all hours worked by him in excess of 40 in the workweek. (This general 40-hour workweek standard has been applicable since Feb. 1, 1969, to all employment within the general coverage of the Act, regardless of whether any overtime pay requirements were previously applicable to such employment before the provisions added by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966 became effective.)
(a) The overtime pay exemption provided by section 7(b)(3) is “limited to 12 hours a day and 56 hours a week” in any workweek; the exemption is provided “for employment up to 12 hours in any workday and up to 56 hours in any workweek” without any payment for overtime hours at one and one-half times the regular rate being required. However, the exemption from any such time-and-one-half payment is limited to workweeks when “no more” than the specified hours are worked and is contingent on payment to the employee in such a workweek of “compensation for hours between 40 and 56” at a rate “not less than one and one-half times the applicable minimum wage.” (H. Rept. No. 1366, pp. 12-13, 43, and S. Rept. No. 1487, p. 32, 89th Cong., second sess.) Thus, the exemption will be applicable to an employee otherwise eligible under the principles previously discussed in this part in any workweek when his hours of work do not exceed 12 in any day or 56 in the week if, and only if, his “compensation for employment in excess of forty hours” is “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the minimum wage rate applicable to him under section 6”, as provided in section 7(b)(3). This means that in addition to the requirement of section 6, under which the first 40 hours of work must be paid for at a rate not less than the minimum hourly wage rate therein specified, the compensation requirements applicable to such an employee for whom the 7(b)(3) exemption is claimed include any increase in his regular straight-time pay rate for the hours worked in excess of 40 which may be necessary in order to raise the wage rate for such hours to a level of 50 percent above the rate required under section 6. Of course, if the employee is employed at a regular straight-time rate for all his hours of work which is as great or greater than one and one-half times the minimum wage applicable to him under section 6, no increase for the hours in excess of 40 will be required under the provisions of section 7(b)(3).
(b) The general minimum wage rate applicable to employees in employment that was subject to the minimum wage provisions of the Act prior to the effective date of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966 is $1.60 an hour. Under section 7(b)(3) an employee of a wholesale or bulk petroleum products distributor to whom this rate is applicable must be paid at least $2.40 an hour for hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek in order for the exemption to apply. Many employees of such distributors are subject to the $1.60 minimum wage rate under section 6 either because they are traditionally covered as employees individually engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined in the Act or because the enterprise coverage provisions in effect prior to the 1966 amendments (applicable to enterprises with an annual gross volume of $1 million or more including excise taxes) would subject their employment to the minimum wage provisions if the 1966 amendments had not been enacted. In the case, however, of an employee of such a distributor whose employment comes within the minimum wage provisions only because of the 1966 amendments (which reduced the annual gross volume for covered enterprises to $500,000 on Feb. 1, 1967, and to $250,000 on Feb. 1, 1969, exclusive of specified separately stated excise taxes at the retail level), the minimum wage rate applicable under section 6 was $1.30 an hour until February 1, 1970, when it increased to $1.45 an hour. Beginning February 1, 1971, the minimum wage rate applicable to such an employee will be the same ($1.60 an hour) as that presently applicable to employment covered by the provisions of the prior Act. For employees subject to the $1.30 minimum wage rate the rate required for work over 40 hours under section 7(b)(3) was accordingly $1.95 an hour; for those subject to the $1.45 rate beginning February 1, 1970, such rate is $2.175. A discussion of the present and prior coverage of the Act will be found in part 776 of this chapter, when a revision of such part discussing enterprise coverage is published.
(a) As noted in §794.141, the partial exemption provided by section 7(b)(3) from the requirement that overtime hours be paid for at not less than one and one-half times the employee's regular rate applies only to “employment up to 12 hours in any workday and up to 56 hours in any workweek.” The statute makes it plain that in any workweek when an employee otherwise eligible for the exemption works more than the specified daily or weekly hours the exemption applies only “if such employee receives compensation for employment in excess of 12 hours in any workday, or for employment in excess of 56 hours in any workweek, as the case may be, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” Failure of the employer to pay overtime compensation under these special standards defeat the exemption. (See Wirtz v. Osceola Farms Co., 372 F. 2d 584 (C.A. 5); Holtville Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 298 (C.A. 9).)
(b) Under this provision, the number of hours worked in the workweek which are in excess of 12 in any workday or workdays therein, or the number in excess of 56 in the week, whichever is the greater number, must be compensated as provided in section 7(b)(3). Thus, the requisite time-and-one-half compensation must be paid for all daily overtime hours in excess of 12 per day worked by an employee in a workweek when his hours worked do not exceed 56 in the week; and for all weekly overtime hours in excess of 56 which he works in a workweek when he does not work more than 12 hours in any day. When an employee works in excess of both the daily and weekly maximum hours standards in any workweek for which the exemption is claimed, he must be paid at such overtime rate for all hours worked in the workweek in excess of the applicable daily maximum or in excess of the applicable weekly maximum, whichever number of hours is greater. Thus, if his total hours of work in the workweek which are in excess of the daily maximum are 10 and his hours in excess of the weekly maximum are 8, overtime compensation is required for 10 hours, not 18. As an example, suppose an employee employed at an hourly rate of $2.40 is employed under the other conditions specified for exemption under section 7(b)(3) and works the following schedule:
Worked 14 9 10 15 12 8 0 68
Number of overtime hours in excess of 56 in the workweek, 12; number of hours in excess of 12 per day, five.
Since the weekly overtime hours are greater, the employee is entitled to overtime pay for 12 hours at $3.60 an hour (11⁄2 × $2.40), a total of $43.60 for the overtime hours, in addition to pay at his regular rate for the remaining 56 hours (56 × $2.40) in the amount of $134.40, or a total of $177.60 for the week. If the employee had not worked the 8 hours on Saturday, his total hours worked in the week would have been 60, of which five were daily overtime hours, and there would have been 4 weekly overtime hours under the section 7(b) standard. For such a schedule the employee would be entitled to 5 hours of overtime pay at time and one-half (5 × 11⁄2 × $2.40 = $18) plus the pay at his regular rate for the remaining 55 hours (55 × $2.40 = $132) making a total of $150 due him for the week.
(c) The overtime compensation payable to an employee under section 7(b)(3) when his hours worked in the workweek are in excess of 12 in any workday or in excess of 56 in the week must be “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” This extra compensation for the excess hours cannot be said to have been paid to an employee unless all the straight time compensation due him for the nonovertime hours under his contract (express or implied) or under any applicable statute has been paid (§778.315 of this chapter). In computing the extra compensation due, the “regular rate” of the employee is calculated in accordance with section 7(e) of the Act, as explained in §778.107 of this chapter, et seq., and can in no event be less than the minimum required by the Act (see §778.107 of this chapter). Since, for exemption from section 7(a) under section 7(b)(3) in workweeks exceeding 40 hours, the Act requires that the employee receive not only compensation for 40 hours at not less than the minimum rate prescribed in section 6 but also “compensation for employment in excess of 40 hours” at a rate not less than one and one-half times such minimum rate, the “regular rate”, on which time-and-one-half overtime pay must be computed for daily hours worked in excess of 12 or weekly hours worked in excess of 56, must be calculated in conformity with these minimum standards.
(d) The following illustrations of the application of these principles in the case of an employee whose applicable minimum wage rate under section 6 is $1.60 an hour may be helpful. First, suppose the “regular rate” at which such an employee is employed, calculated in accordance with section 7(e) of the Act and part 778 of this chapter, is $2.40 an hour or more. This would be true of an employee employed solely at a single hourly rate of pay of $2.40 or more which he receives as straight time compensation for every hour of work. It would likewise be true of an employee, however compensated (whether by a salary for a fixed or variable number of hours, by commissions, piece rates, day rates or other pay systems or by a combination of these), whose pay for all hours worked in the workweek (except amounts excluded under section 7(e)) yields him average hourly straight-time earnings of $2.40 or more an hour. Since the employee's regular rate received for all nonovertime hours of work is in such a case not less than one and one-half times his applicable minimum rate under section 6, the compensation requirements of section 7(b)(3) are satisfied for all nonovertime as well as overtime hours worked if he receives compensation at his “regular rate” of $2.40 or more an hour for all hours worked in his workweek which are not in excess of 12 in his workday or 56 in his workweek, together with extra compensation for overtime in an amount sufficient to provide compensation for all his hours worked in excess of such daily or weekly hours, whichever are greater, at a rate at least 50 percent higher than such regular rate (at least $3.60 an hour if the regular rate is $2.40 an hour). A somewhat different situation is presented, however, where the employee whose applicable minimum wage under section 6 is $1.60 an hour is paid, as the Act permits, at a wage rate for nonovertime hours up to 40 in the workweek which is not less than the $1.60 minimum but is not as much as the $2.40 required for hours of employment in excess of 40. As an example, suppose he is paid $2 an hour for 40 hours and $2.40 as required by section 7(b)(3) for hours in excess of 40, and works 60 hours in a workweek in which 10 of his hours worked are in excess of 12 in a workday for which overtime compensation must be paid at not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. Since payment of the $2 and $2.40 rates for hours worked up to and in excess of 40, respectively, satisfies the straight-time requirements for compensation under section 7(b)(3), all the compensation requirements for exemption thereunder will be satisfied if, in addition, he is paid for the 10 daily overtime hours an extra sum equal to one-half his “regular rate” multiplied by 10. His regular rate is computed for the workweek by dividing his total straight-time compensation for the week by the number of hours worked for which it is paid and is accordingly $2.133 an hour ($2 × 40 = $80; $2.40 × 20 = $48; $80 + 48 = $128; $128 ÷ 60 = $2.133; see §778.115 of this chapter). Thus, the section 7(b)(3) compensation requirements are satisfied by payment of straight-time compensation in the amount of $80 for 40 hours of work and in the amount of $48 for the 20 additional hours worked, together with $10.67 as overtime premium for the 10 daily overtime hours ($2.133 × 1⁄2 × 10), or total pay of $138.67 for the week.
Where an employee performs work during his workweek, some of which is exempt under one section of the Act, and the remainder of which is exempt under another section or sections, of the Act, the exemptions may be combined. The employee's combination exemption is controlled in such case by that exemption which is narrower in scope. For example, if part of his work is exempt from both minimum wage and overtime compensation under one section of the Act, and the rest is exempt only from the overtime pay requirements by virtue of section 7(b)(3), the employee is exempt that week from the overtime pay provisions, but not from the minimum wage requirements. Similarly, an employee who spends part of his workweek in work which would, if done throughout the week, exempt him completely from the overtime pay requirements, and the remainder of the week in work exempt from such requirements only to the extent and under the conditions specified in section 7(b)(3), could be exempt from overtime pay only to such extent and under such conditions. Thus where an employee spends part of his workweek in transporting petroleum products by tank truck for an employer in an enterprise described in section 7(b)(3), and the remainder of his workweek in driving a taxicab for the employer's taxi business (work exempt from the overtime provisions under section 13(b)(17)), he is eligible for exemption from overtime pay only if he is compensated in such workweek in accordance with the provisions of section 7(b)(3) and only to the extent which that section provides.
(a) Form of records. No particular order or form of records is prescribed by the recordkeeping regulations (part 516 of this chapter). Every employer operating under section 7(b)(3) of the Act is, however, required to maintain and preserve records containing the information and data as set out in §§516.2 and 516.21 of this chapter.