Page images
PDF
EPUB

13(b)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.25 Such employees are not within the section
The Commission has also specifically stated that 13(b) (1) exemption.?'
its jurisdiction under section 204 of the Motor

[13 F.R. 2346, Apr. 30, 1948, as amended at 28 F.R.
Carrier Act relates to safety of operation of motor 11686, Nov. 1, 1963]
vehicles only, and to the safety of operation of

SECTION 782.3 DRIVERS such vehicles on the highways of the country, and

(a) A "driver," as defined by the Interstate that alone.” 26 Accordingly, the exemption does

Commerce Commission,30 is an individual who not extend to employees merely because they en

drives a motor vehicle in transportation which is, gage in activities affecting the safety of operation

within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, in of motor vehicles operated on private premises. interstate or foreign commerce. 31 This definition Nor does it extend to employees engaged solely in does not require that the individual be engaged in such activities as operating freight and passenger

such work at all times; the Commission has recogelevators in the carriers' terminals or moving nized that even full-duty drivers devote some of freight or baggage therein or on the docks or their working time to activities other than such streets by hand trucks, which activities have no driving. “Drivers," as defined by the Commisconnection with the actual operation of motor

sion, include, for example, such partial-duty drivvehicles.27 Certain classes of employees who are

ers as the following, who drive in interstate or not within the Commission's definitions of drivers, foreign commerce as part of a job in which they drivers' helpers, loaders, and mechanics are men

are required also to engage in other types of drivtioned in sections 782.3-782.6, inclusive. Others ing or nondriving work. Individuals whose who do not come within these definitions include driving duties are concerned with transportation, the following, whose duties are considered by the

some of which is in intrastate commerce and some Commission to affect safety of operation, if at all,

of which is in interstate or foreign commerce only indirectly; stenographers (including those

within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act; who write letters relating to safety or prepare

individuals who ride on motor vehicles engaged accident reports); clerks of all classes (including

in transportation in interstate or foreign comrate clerks, billing clerks, clerks engaged in pre

merce and act as assistant or relief drivers of the

vehicles in addition to helping with loading, unparing schedules, and filing clerks in charge of filing accident reports, hours-of-service records, loading, and similar work; drivers of chartered inspection reports and similar documents); fore

buses or of farm trucks who have many duties men, warehousemen, superintendents, salesmen,

unrelated to driving or sa fety of operation of their and employees acting in an executive capacity.28

vehicles in interstate transportation on the high

ways; and so-called "driver-salesmen” who devote 25 Walling v. Comet Carriers, 151 F.(2d) 107 (C.C.A. 2); much of their time to selling goods rather than to Hansen v. Salinas Valley Ice Co. (Cal. App.) 144 P.(2d) 896 ;

activities affecting such safety of operation.32 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.

29 Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (rate Brinks, Inc., 54 F. Supp. 676 (S.D. N.Y.); Walling v. Villaume clerk who performed incidental duties as cashier and dispatcher) ; Box & Lumber Co., 58 F. Supp. 150 (D. Minn.); Hager v. Brinks,

Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Porter v.

Poindexter, 158 F.(20)_759 (C.A. 10) (checker of freight and bill Inc., 11 Labor Cases, par. 63,296 (N.D. III.), 6 W.H, Cases 262;

collector) ; Potashnik Local Truck System v. Archer (Ark. Sup. Walling v. DeSoto Creamery & Produce Co., 51 F. Supp. 938 Ct.), 179 S.W.(20) 696 (night manager who did clerical work (D. Minn.); Dallum v Farmers Cooperative Trucking Assn., on way bills, filed day's accumulation of bills and records, billed

out local accumulation of shipments, checked mileage on trucks 46 F. Supp. 785 (D. Minn.); McLendon v. Bewley Mills (N.D.

and made written reports, acted as night dispatcher, answered Tex.), 3 Labor Cases, par, 60,247, 1 W.H. Cases 934 ; Gibson telephone calls, etc.). v. Glasgow (Tenn. Sup. Ct.), 157 S.W. (20) 814 ; cf. Morris v. 30 49 C.F.R., 1943 Cum. Supp., Part 191, sec. 191.1(b) Ex parte McComb, 332 U.S. 422. See also sec. 782.1, footnotes 9-11, and

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. secs. 782.7-782.8.

31 As to what is considered transportation in interstate or 26 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 129. See also foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.S. 534, 548.

see sec. 782.7.

32 Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Morris v. 21 Gordon's Transports v. Walling, 162 F.(20) 203 (C.A. 6), McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Richardson v. James Gibbons Co., 132 certiorari denied 322 U.S. 774 ; Walling v. Comet Carriers, 57 F.(20) 627 (C.A. 4), affirmed 319 U.S. 44 ; Gavril v. Kraft F. Supp. 1018, affirmed, 151 F.(20) 107 (C.A. 2), certiorari dis

Cheese Co., 42 F. Supp. 702 (N.D. III.) ; Walling v. Craig, 53 F.

Supp. 479 (D. Minn.) ; Vannoy v. Swift & Co. (Mo. S. Ct.), 201 missed 328 U.S. 819; Gibson v. Glasgow (Tenn. Sup. Ct.), 157 S.W. (20) 350 ; Ex Parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. S.W. (20) 814 ; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1 ; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. See also Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S.

125 ; Ex parte No. MC-4, M.C.C. 1. Cf. Colbeck v. Dairyland

Creamery Co. (S.D. Sup. Ct.), 17 N.W.(20) 262, in which the 695 ; Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649.

court held that the exemption did not apply to a refrigeration 28 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125 ; Ex parte No.

mechanic by reason solely of the fact that he crossed State lines MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481. But see secs. 782.5 (b) and 782.6(b) as

in a truck' in which he transported himself to and from the to certain foremen and superintendents.

various places at which he serviced equipment belonging to his
employer.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

128.

481 NU job ref

ection

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

FR

SECTION 782.4 DRIVERS' HELPERS

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

(6) 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

(a) A driver's "helper," as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission, “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.11 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; 13 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

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

33 Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649, citing Richardson V. James Gibbons Co., 132 F.(20) 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.

34 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 C.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.(20) 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.(20) 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).

as Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, affirmed 162 F.(20) 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 Es 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).

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

50

lo in

51

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

chains.44 In accordance with principles previously stated,45 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.46 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.*? 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.*

SECTION 782.5 LOADERS (a) A "loader,” as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission,“' 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

"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."

(6) 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 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

tic
of
fr
th

an

pa no

48

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

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 1. Pyramid Motor Freight Corp., 152 F.(2d) 619 (CA. 2); Walling v. 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 r. Farmers Coop. Trucking Assn., 46 F. Supp. 785 (D. Minn.).

47 Walling r. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62.934, 6 W.H. Cases 831, affirmed 162 F.(20) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied, 332 V.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).

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

free

50 Lerinson 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.(20) 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.

31 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.(20) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari_denied 332 U.S. 774 ; Tinerella v. Des Moines Transp. Co., 41 F. Supp. 798.

5 Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, attirmed 162 F. (20) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 332 U.S. 774 ; Walling r. 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.

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

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

him exactly what to do in each instance and he is given no share in the exercise of discretion as to the manner in which the loading is done.57 Such activities would not seem to constitute the kind of "loading” which directly affects the safety of operation of the loaded vehicle on the public highways, under the Commission's definitions. 58

SECTION 782.6 MECHANICS

form so trivial, casual, or occasional a part of an employee's activities, or his activities may relate only to such articles or to such limited handling of them, that his activities will not come within the kind of “loading" which is described by the Commission and which, in its opinion, directly affects "safety of operation.” Thus, the following activities have been held to provide no basis for exemption : unloading; placing freight in convenient places in the terminal, checking bills of lading; wheeling or calling freight being loaded or unloaded; loading vehicles for trips which will not involve transportation in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act; and activities relating to the preservation of the freight as distinguished from the safety of operation of the motor vehicles carrying such freight on the highways.55 As is apparent from the Commission's opinion in Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, red caps of bus companies engaged in loading baggage on buses are not loaders engaged in work directly affecting sa fety of operation of the vehicles. In the same opinion, the Commission expressly recognized that there is a class of freight which, because it is light in weight, probably could not be loaded in a manner which would adversely affect "sa fety of operation.” In the case of coal trucks which are loaded from stock piles by the use of an electric bridge crane and a mechanical conveyor, it has been held that employees operating such a crane or conveyor in the loading process are not exempt as "loaders" under section 13(b) (1).56 It seems apparent from the foregoing discussion that an employee who has no responsibility for the proper loading of a motor vehicle is not within the exemption as a “loader" merely because he furnishes physical assistance when necessary in loading heavy pieces of freight, or because he deposits pieces of freight in the vehicle for someone else to distribute and secure in place, or even because he does the physical work of arranging pieces of freight in the vehicle where another employee tells

(a) A "mechanic,” as defined by the Interstate Commerce Commission,59 is an employee who is employed by a carrier subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act and whose duty it is to keep motor vehicles operated in interstate or foreign commerce by his employer in a good and safe working condition. The Commission has determined that the safety of operation of such motor vehicles on the highways is directly affected by those activities of mechanics, such as keeping the lights and brakes in a good and safe working condition, which prevent the vehicles from becoming potential hazards to highway safety and thus aid in the prevention of accidents.59 The courts have held that mechanics perform work of this character where they actually do inspection, adjustment, repair or maintenance work on the motor vehicles themselves (including trucks, tractors and trailers, and buses) and are, when so engaged, directly responsible for creating or maintaining physical conditions essential to the safety of the vehicles on the highways through the correction or prevention of defects which have a direct causal connection with the safe operation of the unit as a whole.60

The following activities performed by mechanics on motor vehicles operated it inter

** Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695 ; Levinson ". Spector Motor Service, 330 ('.S. 649; Porter v. Poindexter, 158 F.(20) 759 (C.A. 10); McKeown v. Southern Calif. Freight Forwarders, 19 F. Supp. 513 ; Walling v. Gordon's Transports

11.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, attirmed 162 F.(20) 203 (C.d. 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 r. Moran Transp. Lines, 50 F. Supp. 107, 54 F. Supp. 765 (cf. 57 F. Supp. 212); Gibson v. Glasgow (Tenn. Sup. Ct.), 157 S. W.(20) 814. See also Keeling 1. Huber & Huber Motor Express, 57 F. Supp. 617.

* Barrick v. South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. (N.D. III.), 8 Labor Cuscs, par. 62,242, affirmed 149 F.(20) 960 (C.A. 7).

57 See Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695 ; McKeown v. Southern Calif. Freight Forwarders, 49 F. Supp. 543; Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,934, affirmed 162 F. (20) 203 (C.A. 6) certiorari denied 332 U.S. 774 ; Crean v. Moran Transportation Lines, 50 F. Supp. 107 (see also further opinion in 54 F. Supp. 765, and cf. the court's holding in 57 F. Supp. 212 with Walling v. Gor. don's Transports, cited above). See also Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649.

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

59 Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 132, 133. Ex parte No. MC-40 (Sub. No. 2), 88 M.C.C. 710 (repair of refrigeration equipment). See also Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422.

60 Walling v. Silver Bros., 136 F.(20) 168 (C.A. 1); McDuffie r. 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: Walling v. Huber & Huber Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 855 ; Tinerella v. Des Moines Transp. Co., 41 F. Supp. 798 ; Robbins r. Zabarsky, 44 F. Supp. 807 ; West 1. Smoky Mt. Stages, 40 F Supp. 296; Walling v. Cumberland & Liberty Mills Co., (S.D. Fla.), 6 Labor Cases, par. 61,184 ; Esibili 1. Marshall_(). N.J.). 6 Labor Cases, par. 61,256 ; Keegan v. Ruppert (S.D. NY.). 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,726 | Baker v. Sharpless Hendler Ice Cream Co. (E.D. Pa.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,956 : Kentucky Transport Co. v. Drake (Ky. Ct. App.), *182 S.W.(20) 960.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

state or foreign commerce are illustrative of the (c)(1) An employee of a carrier by motor vespecific kinds of activities which the courts, in hicle is not exempted as a "mechanic" from the applying the foregoing principles have regarded overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards as directly affecting "safety of operation”: The Act under section 13(b) (1) merely because he inspection, repair, adjustment, and maintenance works in the carrier's garage, or because he is for safe operation of steering apparatus, lights, called a "mechanic," or because he is a mechanic brakes, horns, windshield wipers, wheels and axles, by trade and does mechanical work. The exempbushings, transmissions, differentials, motors, tion applies only if he is doing a class of work starters and ignition, carburetors, fifth wheels, defined by the Commission as that of a "mesprings and spring hangers, frames, and gasoline chanic," including activities which, under the tanks.61 Inspecting and checking air pressure in Commission's definitions, directly affect the safety tires, changing tires, and repairing and rebuilding of operation of motor vehicles in transportation tires for immediate replacement on the vehicles on the public highways in interstate or foreign from which they were removed have also been commerce.67 Activities which, according to the held to affect safety of operation directly. 62 The Commission, do not directly affect such safety of same is true of hooking up tractors and trailers, operation include those performed by employees including light and brake connections, and the whose jobs are confined to such work as that of inspection of such hookups.63

dispatchers, carpenters, tarpaulin tailors, vehicle (6) The section 13(b) (1) exemption applies, painters, or service men who do nothing but oil, in accordance with principles previously stated,61 gas, grease, or wash the motor vehicles.68 To to an employee whose job involves activities con these may be added activities such as filling radisisting wholly or in part of doing, or immediately ators, checking batteries, and the usual work of directing, a class of work which, under the Com such employees as stockroom personnel, watchmission's definitions referred to above, is that of

men, porters, and garage employees performing a “mechanic” and directly affects the safety of menial nondiscretionary tasks or disassembling operation of motor vehicles on the public highways

work. Employees whose work is confined to such in interstate or foreign commerce within the

"nonsa fety” activities are not within the exempmeaning of the Motor Carrier Act. The Com

tion,69 even though the proper performance of mission's power to establish qualifications and

their work may have an indirect effect on the maximum hours of service for such an employee has been sustained by the courts.65 A supervisory 6 Robbins v. Zabarsky, 44 F. Supp. 867; Mason & Dixon Lines

v. Ligon (Tenn. Ct. App.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,962 ; cf. Morris employee who plans and immediately directs and v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 and Levinson v. Spector Motor Service,

330 U.S. 649. checks the proper performance of this class of

67 Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Keeling v. Huber & Huber work may come within the exemption as a partial

Motor Express, 57 F. Supp. 617 ; Walling v. Huber & Huber

Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 855; Walling v. Silver Fleet duty mechanic. 66

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 v. Burlington Transp. Co. (D. 61 McDuffie v. Hayes Freight Lines, 71 F. Supp. 755 ; Walling Nebr.), 9 Labor Cases, par. 62,576. Compare Ex parte No. 1. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846 ; Keeling v. Huber MC-40 (Sub. No. 2), 88 M.C.C. 710 with Colbeck v. Dairyland & Huber Motor Express, 57 F. Supp. 617; Wolfe v. l'nion Trans

Creamery Co. (S.D. Sup. Ct.), 17 N.W. (2d) 262. fer & Storage Co., 48 F. Supp. 855 ; Mason & Dixon Lines v. Ligon

Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 1.8. 695. (Tenn. Ct. App.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,962 ; Walling v. Palmer,

6* Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 132, 133, 135. 67 F. Supp. 12; Kentucky Transport Co. v. Drake (ky. Ct. App.),

Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Campbell v. Riss & Co. 182 S.W.(20) 960.

(W.D. Mo.), 5 Labor Cases, par. 61,092 (dispatcher); McDuffie & Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846 ; v. Hayes Freight Lines, 71 F. Supp. 755 (work of janitor and Walling v. Palmer, 67 F. Supp. 12. See also McDuffie v. Hayes caretaker, carpentry work, body building, removing paint, preFreight Lines, 71 F. Supp. 755.

paring for repainting, and painting); Walling v. °Silver Fleet 6 Walling v. Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846 ; Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846 (body building, construction Walling r. Palmer, 67 F. Supp. 12. See also Walling v. Gordon's work, painting and lettering); Hutchinson v. Barry, 50 F. Transports (11.D. Tenn.), 10 Labor Cases, par. 62.934, affirmed Supp. 292 (washing vehicles) ; Walling v. Palmer, 67 F. Supp. 162 F.(2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 332 1'.s. 744.

12" (putting water in radiators and batteries, oil and gas in footnote 39, above.

vehicles, and washing vehicles); Anuchick v. Transamerican * Soe sec. 782.2.

Freight Lines, 46 F. Supp. 861 (body builders, tarpaulin worker, * Morris v. McComb, 332 1.S. 422 (see also Pyramid Motor stockroom boy, night watchman, porter) : Bumpus v. Continental Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 L .S, 695 ; Levinson v. Spector Motor

Baking Co. (W.D. Tenn.), 1 Wage Hour Cases 920 (painter), Service, 330 1.S. 649); Willing 1. Silver Bros., 136 F.(20) 168 reversed on other grounds 124 F.(20) 549; Green v. Riss & Co., (CCA. 1) ; McDuffie 1. Hayes Freight Lines. 71 F. Supp: 755 : 45 F. Supp. 618 (night watchmen and gas pump attendant); Walling vi Silver Fleet Motor Express, 67 F. Supp. 846 : Walling Walling 1. Burlington Transp. Co. (D. Nebr.), 9 Labor Cases, par. P. McGinley Co. (E.D. Tenn.), 12 Labor Cases, par. 63,731 ; Wolfe 62,576 (body builders) ; Keegan v. Ruppert (S.D. N.Y.), 7 Labor ri Inton Transfer & Storage Co., 48 F. Supp. 855 ; Tinerella v. Cases, par. 61,726 (greasing and washing); Walling v. East Des Moines Transp. Co., 41 F. Supp. 798 : Robbins v. Zabarsky, Texas Freight Lines (N.D. Tex.), 8 Labor Cases, par. 62,083 44 F. Supp. 867 ; Esibill v. Marshall (D.N.J.), 6 Labor Cases, (menial tasks); Collier v. Acme Freight Lines, unreported (S.D. par. 61,236 ; Keegan v. Ruppert (S.D. N.Y.), 7 Labor Cases, par. Fla., Oct. 1943) (same); Potashnik Local Truck System v. Archer 61,726 : Baker v Sharpless Hendler Ice Cream Co. (E.D. Pa.), (Ark. Sup. Ct.), 179 S.W.(20) 696 (checking trucks in and out 10 Labor Cases, par. 62,956 ; Mason & Dixon Lines v. Ligon and acting as night dispatcher, among other duties) ; Overnight (Tonn. Ct. App.), 7 Labor Cases, par. 61,962 ; Kentucky Trans Motor Corp. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (rate clerk with part-time port Co. v. Drake (Ky. Ct. App.) ; 182 S.W.(20) 960.

duties as dispatcher).

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

See also

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

CI.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »