Morris v. McComb

Morris v. McComb

Opinion

 [*423]   [**131]   [***48]  MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires further application of the principles stated in Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649, and  [***58]  Pyramid Motor Freight  [****3]  Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695. The first question is whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has the power, under § 204 of  [**132]  the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, ¹ [****4]  to establish qualifications  [***49]  and maximum hours of service with respect to drivers and mechanics employed full time, as such, by a common carrier by motor vehicle, when the services rendered, through such employees, by such carrier, in interstate commerce, are distributed generally throughout the year, constitute 3% to 4% of the carrier's total carrier services, and the performance of such services is shared indiscriminately among such employees and mingled with their performance of other like services for such carrier not in interstate commerce. The other question is whether, if the Commission  [*424]  has that power, the overtime requirements of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ² apply to such employees in view of the exemption stated in § 13 (b) (1) of that Act. ³ We hold that the Commission has the power in question and that the overtime requirements of § 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act therefore do not apply to such employees.

This action was brought March  [****5]  26, 1942, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, ⁴ [****7]  to enjoin the petitioner, James  [*425]  F. Morris, from violating § 15 (a) (1) and (2) of that Act ⁵  [***50]  through failure to pay his  [**133]  employees compensation for overtime in accordance with § 7 of that Act. ⁶ After a trial based on the pleadings and stipulated facts, the complaint was dismissed September 26, 1945.  In its unreported conclusions of law the court stated that neither the petitioner nor his employees were engaged "in the production of goods for commerce" within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that, to the extent that they might be considered to be engaged "in commerce" within the meaning of that Act, the requirements of its § 7, as to compensation for overtime, did not apply to them. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed this judgment May 29, 1946, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Walling v. Morris, 155 F.2d 832. Because of its importance in interpreting the Motor Carrier Act and the Fair Labor  [****6]  Standards Act and because the question first stated above had not been passed upon in our decisions in the Levinson  [*426]  and Pyramid cases, supra, we granted certiorari, 330 U.S. 817, limited to the following question:

"2. Where such employees [i. e., those of a common carrier for hire who conducts a general cartage business] during a minority of their time are engaged in the transportation of interstate traffic are they exempt under the provisions of Section 13 (b) (1) of the Act from the maximum hours provision of Section 7 of the Act as employees with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of Section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 (49 U. S. C. sec. 301, et seq.)?"

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.