Document: 331 U.S. 17 67 S.Ct. 1056 91 L.Ed. 1312 WALLING, Adm'r, Wage & Hour Div., Department of Labor,v.HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. No. 74. Argued Feb. 7, 10, 1947. Decided April 14, Mr. Morton Lixtin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Messrs. Ben F. Saye, Dundan, Okl., and Paul Sandmeyer, Los Angeles, respondents. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case brings here a question as to application overtime provisions Fair Labor Standards Act1 payment compensation pursuant employment contracts similar those in Walling v. A. H. Belo Corp., 316 624, 62 1223, 86 1716. 2 Respondent is engaged business cementing, testing otherwise servicing oil wells, which it uses its own peculiar equipment. To operate this equipment respondent retains highly stabilized group skilled specially trained 'field employees.' The volume respondent's business, however, inconstant. Consequently, these employees are required work variable number hours from day week week. 3 Prior passage Act 1938, were paid fixed monthly salaries. Thereafter, they put on 'weekly-guarantee' plan that was be involved case. abandoned March 1, 1942, under pressure Administrator Act, reinstated July after Bel decision had seemed end all questions legality.2 Since reinstatement has been continuously effect, embodied formal written between whom applied. 4 part now issue agreement pay 'a regular basic rate (a specified of) cents per hour first 40 any workweek, not less than one one-half times such hourly time over with guarantee Employee shall receive necessities may demand sum $ number) each workweek.'3 5 so at or above minimum prescribed by Administrator's order, but always related guaranteed flat employee became entitled more only weeks he worked 84 hours.4 actually regularly consistent contractual obligation stated. 6 Petitioner sued § enjoin against future adherence plan, ground failed include 7(a). He contended actual 'regular rate' payable rate, rather quotient amount correlative divided said follow fact usually nevertheless received full sum. 7 District Court (316 627-629, 1226) found, 'bona fide,' 'they intended to, did, really fix rates' men employed. It denied relief5 Circuit Appeals affirmed,6 both Courts relying our 8 admits close similarity facts his contentions argues, should followed: (a) because there factual differences two cases adequate distinguish them, (b) implicitly overruled later decisions Court, (c) erroneous. 9 As arguments, we note substantially identical, except guarantee. Under contract, would addition wage 54 1/2 given week;7 hours. bears no relation usual workweek. 10 Actually, have In many 100 hours; others 30. about 20 cent workweeks, excess hours.8 Whenever do, accordance contract basis appropriate overtime. 11 No can workweek Belo. appears record also fluctuating average Indeed, exceeded considerably worked.9 When did so, too overtime.10 There nothing suggest different treatment cases. 12 points alleged weekly when week, carried rates payroll records. 13 points, difference right however short their well here.11 second think without significance. function records merely show amounts payable. These affect obligations, nor practice variance contract. 14 We whatever exist substance, must either followed overruled. 15 us petitioner's argument, attention directed three decided since Belo, wherein held certain plans meet 7(a) requirement. urged legally than, principles necessarily inconsistent with, provision 16 itself, because, hours, determined payable; less, inferred collateral specification legal then due contemplated overtime.12 On other hand, find relied petitioner, agreed method wages computed made like inference impossible. Halmerich Payne, Inc., 323 37, 65 11, 89 29, considered 'split-day plan,' 'regular' four eight-hour shift, 'overtime' hours.13 an statutory overtime, straight-time Obviously, rates, although named plan. Overnight Motor Transp. Co. Missel, 572, 1216, 1682, dividing worked. deciding, expressly noted controlling posed entirely 7(a).14 18 Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 419, 1242, 1250, 1705, Harnischfeger 427, 1246, 1711, established alternative methods computing employee's wages. One multiply add products. jobs done piecework rate. greater sums.15 piece-work constant course negated possible compensation. low, relative latter always, almost determinative paid. payments related, according method. Again, distinguished.16 19 seem Court's opinions cases, far undermining showed affirmative concern language situations before extended situation Finally, petitioner maintains wrongly 'define area (its) continued vitality, if any.' His argument score same advanced behalf itself. 21 reasons stated rejecting equally valid today, need repeated. Moreover, holding rule five years, recognized occasion. Knowing decision, Congress permitted stand unmodified courts applied construed. Employers (including case) regulated affairs faith it. Even doubted wisdom original proposition, inclined depart time. 22 Affirmed. 23 RUTLEDGE. 24 I concur judgment upon authority agree MURPHY here, view takes concerning effects Act. But distinguishable facts; parties cause doubt others, making arrangements; me indistinguishable covered decision. Accordingly, restrict narrowly presented, join rendered. 25 MURPHY, BLACK concurs, dissenting. 26 conceded guaranty sufficient so-called 44 additional 'basic rate.' effective 84. words, referred meaning effect whatsoever unless Whether 60 amount. 27 square scheme plain requirements 1938 Time again clear based normal, non-overtime Trans. 580, 1221, 1682; Helmerich 40, 13, 29; United States Rosenwasser, 360, 363, 295, 296, 301; 424, 1244, 1705; 430, 1248, 1711. 'The very nature reflect during exclusive payments. arbitrary label chosen parties; fact. Once mode determination becomes matter mathematical computation, result unaffected designation contrary contracts.' supra, pages 425, 1245, 1705. 28 Our therefore focused payments, And do that, discover amount, That thus purposes being obviously artificial one. 29 said, sanctioned true, does justify continuance erroneous doctrine. distinguished subsequent distinctions essentially ones theory, irreconcilable case, carries refutation dissenting opinion, Otherwise perpetuating augmenting unrealities confusion marked doctrine See Feldman, 'Algebra Supreme Court,' Ill.L.Rev. 489; 'Legality Readjustment Plans Overtime Provision Act,' U. Chi.L.Rev. 486; Mich.L.Rev. 866. 52 Stat. 1060, U.S.C. 201 et seq., U.S.C.A. seq. relevant provisions, contained 7(a), 207(a), follows: 'No employer shall, provided section, employ who commerce production goods commerce— '(3) longer forty expiration year date, receives employed.' June 8, 1942. Compare identical wording page 628, 1225, For instance, lowest May, 1944, tried, hour. Compensation equals $42.40. slightly $42.69. 57 F.Supp. 408. 152 F.2d 622. statement explanation 627—629, 1226, shows 4,284 manweeks California field 5, 3% length, 13% 67% 20% 7% 104 some running high 140 150 'work-week' determining compensation, represent employee. typical cementing operations, counted working spent waiting while drilling crew casing, cement setting, perforation another company, tool standing hole. Transcript Record, States, 622, O.T.1941, pp. 194-337. 631, 632, 1227, Fleming Cir., 121 207, 210, 6. irregular simply wage. absence contracting limitation could factors absent 581, 1682. Theoretically, accumulated compensable 'overtime.' ever so. 41, 29. 'Nothing (A. H.) sanctions use split-day controversy centered whether set forth question, pertaining applicability worked, applying thereof.' 42, little text. Harnischfeger, credited product total hurs multiplied plus earnings (a), ime; inadequate, reason. 431, 432, 1249, 'This 1716, lends support position. particular agreements upheld felt fixing workers authority, proposition point completely unrelated normally 426, concurring Frankfurter 433, refer case; but, Youngerman-Reynolds, involves day, consider further reference redundant.

Category: 6