Opinion ID: 1493191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Method of Computation.

Text: Although the Act only establishes hourly wage standards, it has been uniformly interpreted as covering salaried workers as well as employees paid on an hourly basis. E. g., St. John v. Brown, D. C., 38 F.Supp. 385; Fleming v. Pearson Hardwood Flooring Co., D.C., 39 F.Supp. 300; In re New Style Hat Mfg. Co., Bankrupt, (D.C.N.D.Ohio) 43 F.Supp. 122; Moss v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., (D. C.M.D.Ga.) 42 F.Supp. 807; Boylan v. Linden Mfg. Co., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 158 (C.C.Mich); Williams v. General Mills, D.C.N.D.Ohio, 39 F.Supp. 849; Hargrave v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. (D.C. E.D.Okl.) 42 F.Supp. 908; Haddad v. Beckerman Shoe Corp., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 329 (C. P. Berks Co., Pa.). Otherwise the Act would be almost completely ineffective in reducing the actual hours worked per person, since the penalty for overtime would be purely nominal and in no sense real. In Boylan v. Linden Mfg. Co., supra, the Court stated this expressly (at page 158): That the statute was intended by Congress to apply to employees receiving weekly or monthly wages is, I think, reasonably apparent from a consideration of all the provisions of the Act.    There would seem to be no satisfactory basis for limiting the scope of the statute to employees working solely on the basis of a specific hourly wage. Similarly, the mere fact that a worker's hours of employment fluctuate does not insulate him from the protection of the overtime provisions of the Act. E. g., St. John v. Brown, D.C., 38 F.Supp. 385; Abadie v. Cudahy Packing Co., D.C., 37 F.Supp. 164; McMillan v. Wilson & Co., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 409 (D.Minn.Ramsey Co.); Hargrave v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., D.C.E.D.Okla., 36 F.Supp. 233; Boylan v. Linden Mfg. Co., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 158 (C.C.Mich.). In Boylan v. Linden Mfg. Co., the Court said (at p. 159): The record indicates that plaintiff worked a fluctuating number of hours per week during the period of his employment. This means that the average hourly rate must be computed separately for each week by dividing the sum of fifty dollars by the number of hours actually worked. (Italics supplied.) In this connection it should be noticed that the word regular as used in the overtime compensation provisions of the Act referring to the employee's regular rate of pay does not necessarily mean unvarying. In Haddad v. Bedkerman Shoe Corp., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 329 (C. P. Berks Co., Pa.) for example, it was argued that a person paid by the week has no regular hourly rate; that if in some weeks he works more than in others, his hourly rate would differ each week. This argument was summarily rejected and the Court said (at p. 329): We do not think the word `regular' must necessarily and in all cases mean `unvarying'. `Regular' means, in the first place, in accordance with a regula or rule. It does not necessarily imply an unvarying sameness. It may mean normal, agreeable to established, customary forms   . We think a fair interpretation of the word as used is that it means basic or actual hourly pay.    If the employee's hours vary from week to week, the cost per week to his employer will vary accordingly. See Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 361, 362, 37 S.Ct. 298, 61 L.Ed. 755, L.R.A.1917E, 938, Ann.Cas. 1918A, 1024. There is nothing in the Act which prevents the average hourly rate from being computed separately each week. In fact, the Act contemplates workweek as the regular unit for computing the hourly rate. The Wage and Hour Division has construed regular rate of pay to mean the actual hourly rate of pay, computed by dividing the actual weekly wage by the number of hours actually worked. Regulations on Records § 516.4, 1940 Wage & Hour Man. 282; Interpretative Bulletin No. 4, 1940 Wage & Hour Man. 95, 96. [30] Where the employee works an irregular or fluctuating number of hours from week to week, his regular rate of pay is to be computed each week by dividing his weekly salary by the number of hours he worked that week. See Interpretative Bulletin No. 4, 1940 Wage & Hour Man. 95, 97. Similarly, a vast majority of the courts agree that the regular rate is to be computed on the basis of wages actually received each week divided by the number of hours worked each week. [31] St. John v. Brown, D.C., 38 F.Supp. 385; Floyd v. DuBois Soap Co., Ohio App.1941, 38 N.E.2d 919; McLendon v. Bewley Mills, 4 Wage Hour Rept. 30 (N. D.Tex.); Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y., 39 F.Supp. 275; Sunshine Mining Co. v. Carver, D.C.Idaho, 41 F.Supp. 60; McMillan v. Wilson & Co., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 409 (D.Minn.Ramsey Co.); Haddad v. Bedkerman Shoe Corp., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 329 (C. P. Berks Co.); Moss v. Postal-Telegraph-Cable Co. (D.C. M.D.Ga.) 42 F.Supp. 807; Emerson v. Mary Lincoln Candies, Inc., Sup.Ct., 174 Misc. 353, 20 N.Y.S.2d 570; Angel v. Dayton Veneer & Lumber Mills, 4 Wage Hour Rept. 471 (N.D.Ga.); Boylan v. Linden Mfg. Co., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 158 (C.C. Mich., Ingham Co.); Graves v. Armstrong Creamery Co., 154 Kan. 365, 118 P.2d 613. In Hargrave v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. (D.C.E.D.Okl.), 42 F.Supp. 908, 909, the Court said:    their regular wage is to be computed upon the basis of the wages actually received each week divided by the number of hours worked each week. For that number of hours in excess of the maximum, plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated at the rate of one and a half times the regular rate. The plaintiffs have not received compensation for overtime at one and a half times their regular rate, but have been paid only at regular rates of pay for all hours they worked during the weeks in question, and each plaintiff is therefore entitled to an additional one-half of his regular rate for each hour of overtime in each of the weeks in question. In an effort further to clarify the point, we present one example. Let us suppose an employee is employed at a salary of $30 for a workweek of indefinite length. For a week of 50 hours his regular rate of pay would be 60 cent per hour ($30÷50). The employee's total earnings for the week would be $33, computed as follows: 40 hours at 60 cents per hour (straight time) ................. $24.00 10 hours at 90 cents per hour (time and one-half) ................... $ 9.00 ______ $33.00 The following week, his total earnings would be similarly computed and so on each week.