13(b)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.25 The Commission has also specifically stated that its jurisdiction under section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act relates to safety of operation of motor vehicles only, and to the safety of operation of such vehicles "on the highways of the country, and that alone." 26 Accordingly, the exemption does not extend to employees merely because they engage in activities affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles operated on private premises. Nor does it extend to employees engaged solely in such activities as operating freight and passenger elevators in the carriers' terminals or moving freight or baggage therein or on the docks or streets by hand trucks, which activities have no connection with the actual operation of motor vehicles.27 Certain classes of employees who are not within the Commission's definitions of drivers, drivers' helpers, loaders, and mechanics are mentioned in sections 782.3-782.6, inclusive. Others who do not come within these definitions include the following, whose duties are considered by the Commission to affect safety of operation, if at all, only indirectly; stenographers (including those who write letters relating to safety or prepare accident reports); clerks of all classes (including rate clerks, billing clerks, clerks engaged in preparing schedules, and filing clerks in charge of filing accident reports, hours-of-service records, inspection reports and similar documents); foremen, warehousemen, superintendents, salesmen, and employees acting in an executive capacity.25

25 Walling v. Comet Carriers, 151 F. (2d) 107 (C.C.A. 2); Hansen v. Salinas Valley Ice Co. (Cal. App.) 144 P. (2d) 896; Reynolds v. Rogers Cartage Co., 71 F. Supp. 870 (W.D. Ky.), reversed on other grounds, 166 F. (d) 317 (C.A. 6); Earle v. Brinks, Inc., 54 F. Supp. 676 (S.D. N.Y.); Walling v. Villaume Box & Lumber Co., 58 F. Supp. 150 (D. Minn.); Hager v. Brinks, Inc., 11 Labor Cases, par. 63,296 (N.D. Ill.), 6 W.H. Cases 262; Walling v. DeSoto Creamery & Produce Co., 51 F. Supp. 938 (D. Minn.); Dallum v Farmers Cooperative Trucking Assn., 46 F. Supp. 785 (D. Minn.); McLendon v. Bewley Mills (N.D. Tex.), 3 Labor Cases, par. 60,247, 1 W.H. Cases 934; Gibson v. Glasgow (Tenn. Sup. Ct.), 157 S.W. (2d) 814; cf. Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422. See also sec. 782.1, footnotes 9-11, and secs. 782.7-782.8.

26 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 129. See also United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.S. 534, 548. 2 Gordon's Transports v. Walling, 162 F. (2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 322 U.S. 774; Walling v. Comet Carriers, 57 F. Supp. 1018, affirmed, 151 F.(2d) 107 (C.A. 2), certiorari dismissed 328 U.S. 819; Gibson v. Glasgow (Tenn. Sup: Ct.), 157 S.W. (2d) 814; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 128. See also Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695; Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649.

28 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125; Ex parte No. MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481. But see secs. 782.5 (b) and 782.6(b) as to certain foremen and superintendents.

(a) A "driver," as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission,30 is an individual who drives a motor vehicle in transportation which is, within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, in interstate or foreign commerce.31 This definition does not require that the individual be engaged in such work at all times; the Commission has recognized that even full-duty drivers devote some of their working time to activities other than such driving. "Drivers," as defined by the Commission, include, for example, such partial-duty drivers as the following, who drive in interstate or foreign commerce as part of a job in which they are required also to engage in other types of driving or nondriving work. Individuals whose driving duties are concerned with transportation, some of which is in intrastate commerce and some of which is in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act; individuals who ride on motor vehicles engaged in transportation in interstate or foreign commerce and act as assistant or relief drivers of the vehicles in addition to helping with loading, unloading, and similar work; drivers of chartered buses or of farm trucks who have many duties unrelated to driving or safety of operation of their vehicles in interstate transportation on the highways; and so-called "driver-salesmen" who devote much of their time to selling goods rather than to activities affecting such safety of operation.

32

29 Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (rate clerk who performed incidental duties as cashier and dispatcher); Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Porter v. Poindexter, 158 F. (2d) 759 (C.A. 10) (checker of freight and bill collector); Potashnik Local Truck System v. Archer (Ark. Sup. Ct.), 179 S.W. (2d) 696 (night manager who did clerical work on way bills, filed day's accumulation of bills and records, billed out local accumulation of shipments, checked mileage on trucks and made written reports, acted as night dispatcher, answered telephone calls, etc.).

30 49 C.F.R., 1943 Cum. Supp., Part 191, sec. 191.1 (b) Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1.

31 As to what is considered transportation in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, see sec. 782.7.

32 Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Richardson v. James Gibbons Co., 132 F. (2d) 627 (C.A. 4), affirmed 319 U.S. 44; Gavril v. Kraft Cheese Co., 42 F. Supp. 702 (N.D. Ill.); Walling v. Craig, 53 F. Supp. 479 (D. Minn.); Vannoy v. Swift & Co. (Mo. S. Ct.), 201 S.W. (2d) 350; Ex Parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125; Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1. Cf. Colbeck v. Dairyland Creamery Co. (S.D. Sup. Ct.), 17 N.W. (2d) 262, in which the court held that the exemption did not apply to a refrigeration mechanic by reason solely of the fact that he crossed State lines in a truck in which he transported himself to and from the various places at which he serviced equipment belonging to his employer.

(b) The work of an employee who is a fullduty or partial-duty "driver," as the term "driver" has been defined by the Commission, directly affects "safety of operation" within the meaning of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act whenever he drives a motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the act.33 The Commission has power to establish, and has established, qualifications and maximum hours of service for such drivers employed by common and contract carriers of passengers or property and by private carriers of property pursuant to section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act.34 In accordance with principles previously stated,35 such drivers to whom this regulatory power extends are, accordingly, employees exempted from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act by section 13 (b) (1).36 This does not mean that an employee of a carrier who drives a motor vehicle is exempted as a "driver" by virtue of that fact alone. He is not exempt if his job never involves transportation in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act,37 or if he is employed by a private carrier and the only such transportation called for by his job is not transportation of property.38 It has been held that so-called "hostlers" who "spot" trucks and trailers at a terminal dock for loading and unloading are not exempt as drivers merely because as an incident of such duties they drive the trucks and

33 Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649, citing Richardson v. James Gibbons Co., 132 F. (2d) 627 (C.A. 4), affirmed 319 U.S. 44; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Ex parte No. MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481, 482, 488; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 139 (Conclusion of Law No. 2). See also Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1.

24 See Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte No. MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481; Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Southland Gasoline Co. v. Bayley, 319 U.S. 44; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Safety Regulations (Carriers by Motor Vehicle), 49 CFR, 1943 Cum. Supp., Parts 190–193. 35 See sec. 782.2.

Southland Gasoline Co. v. Bayley, 319 U.S. 44; Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Rogers Cartage Co. v. Reynolds, 166 F. (2d) 317 (C.A. 6).

37 See footnote 25, above, and secs. 782.7, 782.8. 38 See sec. 782.2. See also Ex parte No. MC-28, 18 M.C.C. 481. Cf. Colbeck v. Dairyland Creamery Co. (S. Ct. S.D.), 17 N.W. (2d) 262 (driver of truck used only to transport himself to job sites, as an incident of his work in servicing his employer's refrigeration equipment, held nonexempt).

tractors in and about the premises of the trucking terminal.39

SECTION 782.4 DRIVERS' HELPERS

(a) A driver's "helper," as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission,40 is an employee other than a driver, who is required to ride on a motor vehicle when it is being operated in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act. The Commission has classified all such employees (including armed guards on armored trucks and conductorettes on buses) as "helpers" with respect to whom it has. power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service because of their engagement in some or all of the following activities which, in the Commission's opinion, directly affect the safety of operation of such motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce: 42 assist in loading the vehicles; 3 dismount when the vehicle approaches a railroad crossing and flag the driver across the tracks, and perform a similar duty when the vehicle is being turned around on a busy highway or when it is entering or emerging from a driveway; in case of a breakdown, (1) place the flags, flares, and fuses as required by the safety regulations, (2) go for assistance while the driver protects the vehicle on the highway, or vice versa, or (3) assist the driver in changing tires or making minor repairs; and assist in putting on or removing

43

39 Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, affirmed 162 F. (2d) 203, certiorari denied 322 U.S. 774; Keegan v. Ruppert (S.D. N.Y.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,726, 6 Wage Hour Rept. 676. In the Gordon's Transports case, the "hostlers" were held exempt even though they coupled tractors and trailers together by a simple, largely automatic operation for the sole purpose of enabling the hostlers to move them about the carrier's premises. As to safety-affecting character of mechanical "hook-up" work for over-the-road operations, see sec. 782.6(a).

In Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846, it was held that the exemption was applicable to a "yard driver" whose work included not only the "spotting" of trucks and trailers about the terminal, but also proper closing and sealing of the rear doors and driving the loaded vehicles over city streets to the safety lane for inspection, such driving over city streets occupying about 50 percent of his time. It was also his duty to notice, during such trips, whether anything appeared radically wrong with the loading of the vehicles.

40 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 135-136, 138-139.

41 The term does not include employees who ride on the vehicle and act as assistant or relief drivers. Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, supra. See sec. 782.3.

42 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 135–136. 43 They may also assist in unloading (Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, supra), and activity which has been held not to affect "safety of operation" (see sec. 782.5(c)). As to what it meant by "loading" which directly affects "safety of operation," see sec. 782.5(a).

45

chains." In accordance with principles previously stated, the section 13 (b) (1) exemption applies to employees who are, under the Commission's definitions, engaged in such activities as full-duty or partial-duty "helpers" on motor vehicles being operated in transportation in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act.16 The exemption has been held applicable to so-called helpers who ride on motor vehicles but do not engage in any of the activities of "helpers" which the Commission has found to affect directly the safety of operation of such vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce."7 It should be noted also that an employee, to be exempted as a driver's "helper" under the Commission's definitions, must be "required" as part of his job to ride on a motor vehicle when it is being operated in interstate or foreign commerce; an employee of a motor carrier is not exempted as a "helper" when he rides on such a vehicle, not as a matter of fixed duty, but merely as a convenient means of getting himself to, from, or between places where he performs his assigned work.48

SECTION 782.5 LOADERS

(a) A "loader," as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission,49 is an employee of a carrier subject to section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act (other than a driver or driver's helper as defined in sections 782.3 and 782.4) whose duties include, among other things, the proper loading of his employer's motor vehicles so that they may be safely operated on the highways of the country. A "loader" may be called by another name, such as

44 An employee may be a "helper" under the Commission's definition even though such safety-affecting activities constitute but a minor part of his job. Thus, although the primary duty of armed guards on armored trucks is to protect the valuables in the case of attempted robberies, the Commission has determined that they should be classified as "helpers" where they ride on such trucks being operated in interstate or foreign commerce, because, in the case of an accident or other emergency and in other respects, they act in a capacity somewhat similar to that of the helpers described in the text. Similarly, conductorettes on buses whose primary duties are to see to the comfort of the passengers are classified by the Commission as "helpers" where such buses are being operated in interstate or foreign commerce, because in instances when accidents occur, they help the driver in obtaining aid and protect the vehicle from oncoming traffic. 45 See sec. 782.2.

46 Ispass v. Pyramid Motor Freight Corp., 152 F. (2d) 619 (C.A. 2); Walling y. McGinley Co. (E.D. Tenn.), 12 Labor Cases, par. 63,731, 6 W.H. Cases 916. See also Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695; Dallum v. Farmers Coop. Trucking Assn., 46 F. Supp. 785 (D. Minn.).

47 Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, 6 W.H. Cases 831, affirmed 162 F. (2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied, 332 U.S. 774 (helpers on city "pick-up and delivery trucks" where it was not shown that the loading in any manner affected safety of operation and the helpers' activities were "in no manner similar" to those of a driver's helper in over-the-road operation).

48 See Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695, modifying, on other grounds, 152 F. (2d) 619 (C.A. 2).

49 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 133, 134, 139.

"dockman," "stacker," or "helper," and his duties will usually also include unloading and the transfer of freight between the vehicles and the warehouse, but he engages, as a "loader," in work directly affecting "safety of operation" so long as he has responsibility, when such motor vehicles are being loaded, for exercising judgment and discretion in planning and building a balanced load or in placing, distributing, or securing the pieces of freight in such a manner that the safe operation of the vehicles on the highways in interstate or foreign commerce will not be jeopardized.50

(b) The section 13 (b) (1) exemption applies, in accordance with principles previously stated,51 to an employee whose job involves activities consisting wholly or in part of doing, or immediately directing, a class of work thus defined by the Commission (1) as that of a loader and (2) as directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, since such an employee is an employee with respect to whom the Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service.52 Where a checker, foreman, or other supervisor plans and immediately directs the proper loading of a motor vehicle as described above, he may come within the exemption as a partial-duty loader. 53

(c) An employee is not exempt as a loader where his activities in connection with the loading of motor vehicles are confined to classes of work other than the kind of loading described above, which the Commission has determined directly affects "safety of operation." 54 The mere handling of freight at a terminal, before or after loading, or even the placing of certain articles of freight on a motor carrier truck may

50 Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695; Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, affirmed 162 F. (2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 332 U.S. 774; Walling v. Huber & Huber Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 855; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 133, 134.

51 See sec. 782.2.

52 Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695; Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846; Walling v. Huber & Huber Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 855; Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, affirmed 162 F. (2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 332 U.S. 774; Tinerella v. Des Moines Transp. Co., 41 F. Supp. 798.

53 Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, affirmed 162 F. (2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 332 U.S. 774; Walling v. Huber & Huber Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 855; Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846; Crean v. Moran Transportation Lines, 57 F. Supp. 212 (W.D. N.Y.) (see also 9 Labor Cases, par. 62,416); Walling v. Commercial Motor Freight (S.D. Ind.), 11 Labor Cases, par. 63,451; Hogla v. Porter (E.D. Okla.), 11 Labor Cases, par..63,389, 6 W.H. Cases 608.

54 Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695; Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649.

state or foreign commerce are illustrative of the specific kinds of activities which the courts, in applying the foregoing principles have regarded as directly affecting "safety of operation": The inspection, repair, adjustment, and maintenance for safe operation of steering apparatus, lights, brakes, horns, windshield wipers, wheels and axles, bushings, transmissions, differentials, motors, starters and ignition, carburetors, fifth wheels, springs and spring hangers, frames, and gasoline tanks.61 Inspecting and checking air pressure in tires, changing tires, and repairing and rebuilding tires for immediate replacement on the vehicles from which they were removed have also been held to affect safety of operation directly.62 The same is true of hooking up tractors and trailers, including light and brake connections, and the inspection of such hookups.63

(b) The section 13(b) (1) exemption applies, in accordance with principles previously stated," to an employee whose job involves activities consisting wholly or in part of doing, or immediately directing, a class of work which, under the Commission's definitions referred to above, is that of a "mechanic" and directly affects the safety of operation of motor vehicles on the public highways in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act. The Commission's power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service for such an employee has been sustained by the courts.65 A supervisory employee who plans and immediately directs and checks the proper performance of this class of work may come within the exemption as a partialduty mechanic.66

61 McDuffie v. Hayes Freight Lines, 71 F. Supp. 755; Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846; Keeling v. Huber & Huber Motor Express, 57 F. Supp. 617; Wolfe v. Union Transfer & Storage Co., 48 F. Supp. 855; Mason & Dixon Lines v. Ligon (Tenn. Ct. App.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,962; Walling v. Palmer, 67 F. Supp. 12; Kentucky Transport Co. v. Drake (Ky. Ct. App.), 182 S.W. (2d) 960.

6 Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846; Walling v. Palmer, 67 F. Supp. 12. See also McDuffie v. Hayes Freight Lines, 71 F. Supp. 755.

63 Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846; Walling v. Palmer, 67 F. Supp. 12. See also Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, affirmed 162 F. (2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 332 U.S. 744. footnote 39, above.

Cf.

See sec. 782.2. Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (see also Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695; Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649); Walling v. Silver Bros., 136 F. (2d) 168 (C.C.A. 1); McDuffie v. Hayes Freight Lines, 71 F. Supp. 755: Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846; Walling v. McGinley Co. (E.D. Tenn.), 12 Labor Cases, par. 63,731; Wolfe v. Union Transfer & Storage Co., 48 F. Supp. 855; Tinerella v. Des Moines Transp. Co., 41 F. Supp. 798; Robbins v. Zabarsky, 44 F. Supp. 867; Esibill v. Marshall (D.N.J.), 6 Labor Cases, par. 61,256; Keegan v. Ruppert (S.D. N.Y.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,726 Baker v. Sharpless Hendler Ice Cream Co. (E.D. Pa.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,956; Mason & Dixon Lines v. Ligon (Tenn. Ct. App.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,962; Kentucky Transport Co. v. Drake (Ky. Ct. App.); 182 S.W. (2d) 960.

(c) (1) An employee of a carrier by motor vehicle is not exempted as a "mechanic" from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act under section 13 (b) (1) merely because he works in the carrier's garage, or because he is called a "mechanic," or because he is a mechanic by trade and does mechanical work. The exemption applies only if he is doing a class of work defined by the Commission as that of a "mechanic," including activities which, under the Commission's definitions, directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in transportation on the public highways in interstate or foreign commerce.67 Activities which, according to the Commission, do not directly affect such safety of operation include those performed by employees whose jobs are confined to such work as that of dispatchers, carpenters, tarpaulin tailors, vehicle painters, or service men who do nothing but oil, gas, grease, or wash the motor vehicles.68 To these may be added activities such as filling radiators, checking batteries, and the usual work of such employees as stockroom personnel, watchmen, porters, and garage employees performing menial nondiscretionary tasks or disassembling work. Employees whose work is confined to such "nonsafety" activities are not within the exemption,69 even though the proper performance of their work may have an indirect effect on the

66 Robbins v. Zabarsky, 44 F. Supp. 867; Mason & Dixon Lines v. Ligon (Tenn. Ct. App.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,962; cf. Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 and Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649.

67 Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Keeling v. Huber & Huber Motor Express, 57 F. Supp. 617; Walling v. Huber & Huber Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 855; Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846; McDuffie v. Hayes Freight Lines, 71 F. Supp. 755; Anuchick v. Transamerican Freight Lines, 46 F. Supp. 861; Walling y. Burlington Transp. Co. (D. Nebr.), 9 Labor Cases, par. 62,576. Compare Ex parte No. MC-40 (Sub. No. 2), 88 M.C.C. 710 with Colbeck v. Dairyland Creamery Co. (S.D. Sup. Ct.), 17 N.W. (2d) 262. See also Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695.

6 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 132, 133, 135. Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Campbell v. Riss & Co. (W.D. Mo.), 5 Labor Cases, par. 61,092 (dispatcher); McDuffie v. Hayes Freight Lines, 71 F. Supp. 755 (work of janitor and caretaker, carpentry work, body building, removing paint, preparing for repainting, and painting); Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846 (body building, construction work, painting and lettering); Hutchinson v. Barry, 50 F. Supp. 292 (washing vehicles); Walling v. Palmer, 67 F. Supp. 12 (putting water in radiators and batteries, oil and gas in vehicles, and washing vehicles); Anuchick v. Transamerican Freight Lines, 46 F. Supp. 861 (body builders, tarpaulin worker, stockroom boy, night watchman, porter); Bumpus v. Continental Baking Co. (W.D. Tenn.), 1 Wage Hour Cases 920 (painter), reversed on other grounds 124 F. (2d) 549; Green v. Riss & Co., 45 F. Supp. 648 (night watchmen and gas pump attendant); Walling v. Burlington Transp. Co. (D. Nebr.), 9 Labor Cases, par. 62,576 (body builders); Keegan v. Ruppert (S.D. N.Y.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,726 (greasing and washing); Walling v. East Texas Freight Lines (N.D. Tex.), 8 Labor Cases, par. 62,083 (menial tasks); Collier v. Acme Freight Lines, unreported (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1943) (same); Potashnik Local Truck System v. Archer (Ark. Sup. Ct.), 179 S.W. (2d) 696 (checking trucks in and out and acting as night dispatcher, among other duties); Overnight Motor Corp. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (rate clerk with part-time duties as dispatcher).