CROCKER PACKING CO. v. JULIAN

CROCKER PACKING CO. v. JULIAN
1943 OK 236
145 P.2d 391
193 Okla. 472
Case Number: 31043
Decided: 06/15/1943
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CROCKER PACKING CO.
v.
JULIAN

Syllabus

¶0 1. MASTER AND SERVANT--Employee covered by Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 if substantial part of his activities relates to production of goods for interstate commerce.
The application of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.A. § 201, et seq.) depends upon the character of the employee's activities. If a substantial part of said activities relates to production of goods for interstate commerce, such employee is covered by the act.
2. SAME--Act held to cover mechanic in meat packing plant with duties connected with processing of products for interstate commerce.
A mechanic in a meat packing plant whose duties are to care for and keep in repair the machinery used in the plant in processing products, a substantial part of which are for interstate commerce, is engaged in an "occupation necessary to the production" of goods, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, regulating the hours of service and wages of employees engaged in the "production" of goods in interstate commerce.

Appeal from District Court, Okmulgee County; C. O. Beaver, Judge.

Action by H. B. Julian against the Crocker Packing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Twyford & Smith, of Oklahoma City, and Carland Smith, of Okmulgee, for plaintiff in error.
C. M. Gordon, of Okmulgee, for defendant in error.

RILEY, J.

¶1 This is an action wherein defendant in error obtained a judgment for unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount as liquidated damages, under Title 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219, known as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

¶2 The facts and applicable law in this case are the same as in Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry, decided May 11, 1943, 192 Okla. 533, 137 P.2d 819, except that in this case the employee was a mechanic whose duties were to keep in repair and care for the machinery in the packing plant. The facts and applicable law being substantially the same, our decision in Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry, supra, is determinative of the issues in this case.

¶3 Having held that, under the facts shown, defendant was engaged in the production of goods within the meaning of the act, it is unnecessary to consider alleged error in the instruction submitting that question to the jury.

¶4 Under the authority of Brooks Packing Co. v. Henry, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

¶5 CORN, C.J., GIBSON, V.C.J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.