Brief for the Respondent in Opposition — Dutton v. Cities Service Defense Corp.

’

4

.

*

5

ms *%

$f eA -

rg

+

.

“ cael

§ 4

.

:

fe |

~~

eo

2

j i

Bw ee om naancnee mata

- 4

wo

“

ATES.

,

rs

ST

= +

‘f)

4

NITE

}

t

s

4

4

3

4

4

SUPREME

COURT OF THI

”

©

Pad

i F eh’ :: - e my

_INDEX—(Continued} : ss

<* ; ry ‘

CITATIONS . .

. Casts

*PAGH

v

. 4

& Co., v. Wantock, et al, 323 U.S. 126 (1644) 49.29.93

vit. ns Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 C94 9.12

Joshua Hendy Cogp., 183 Fed. (2) 515 a 21,22

. ° <=

.

ve. The Q. D. Ordnance Corp., 233 Fex 2) 902 11

5 tx 2ot H ( ° 7} promt 4 i4 by $ (*? 243 ‘ch e 73

eae :

- ° /

é . | ind “

rs : IH :;* . r 363

Wt ry & & ; i i i ~ ‘ rd ¢ ¢ ae es

Martin Nebraska Cc Culkin, 197 Fed. (2) 98! 8

King Packing Co.) 359 U.S. 2 ‘ rG 22 is

si a

Swift & (¢ 323 U.S. 144 41944 4.8.9,22.23

é

:

. " om rr ° 4 7 A..4 Ee. es SS

Fiteh DO (Ls. eee 4.5 12,13,14.15,24,25

, ;

i. State Burkett 2. 2) 46 21

Statutes ’

. .

: 1? L fo —™~.

oben . ?.3.4.5,7,10,11,12,13,14,15 16.20.23 .24.95

e

i i ‘ { 4 RY he 6

ben 4 ss » , 4,5,10,11,12,18,14, 15,16,20,23.24

’ ft “ ">

! Se rt 14 u > 4 PVtile } 1}

: .

Debates on the Floor of the Congress Relating to

the History of. the Lesislation in Quesiion °

- -

| *) ’ “yest, 0 1 ? ’ e? ’

is : \ i m, pres hy de D, med) 5 és IO,

’ - ’ } ? +. ; . _”~

! ara 4) } . 4. P ‘Teh, 6.1%

* .

, o -

ba *

No, 249 ty, Bohs £ ; a

- a :

UNS ES

j = A = y /

as oret OCTOBER: TERM, 1957. .

*

-~ %

GLO DET PON, 67 al Pe titiones

vs

CFTIES SERVICK DEFENSE .

CORPORA TON | . Fee S fit niteont

,’ °

“ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE BIGHTH CIRCUIT

a ee eee

.

.

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN’ OPPOSTEION

€

{ ye ; :

~ .

\e; OPINIONS BELOW

4 oF ftmtic ‘7 ; ‘° j yo ’

Ltie Citations toc oms of the District Court ond

9 ; 5

} ; SS } : ct gry = “oa

4 the Court of Vayu ais are set forth in Tie Petition.

» i

a

: F

JURISDICTION

rey) aE 1 ee et: - 4.1 ;

Bihe® GUNES tICTiOnad requisites aFfe Raeaquatels tf forth:

_ "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED SPATES

“=

STATUE TEMISVOLV ED ;

Phe perteent provisgpons ef ‘the Rat Labor Standards |.

Act and the Portal-teo Portel Act of 1047, involyed in

these consolidated causes ‘are referred to in the Petition,

if page r thereat, riniel ails? set cut aT “Apopre nec § A nt prcgiee’s

YE20 of the Petition. . .

OURSTIONS PRESENTED

st ; = e . rf Ee

Petitioners have elected te presen the issties Wn These

cousolidated Gases in the form: oof fous questions, but Re

spondent’ respectfully submits that all four of said ques

cars , athe Sey ‘ : °

tions are embraced? Within the following question:

8 , i ¢ ?

faa eee * ue

Denes Section Poof the Portal to-Portal Aet of LO47,

bar ALL ucliims arising prio® te the effective date of said

Standards Act for any actividy CALL ACTIVITIES), ex.

carpet gv ben sted activity: im biel le compensable hy eythies

Act for overtime compensation under the Barr Labor

(1) anc express provision of a written or non-written con

tact, OF, et i a-cHsfoms or “practice COVOLTHY such HCTIVITY }

° . .

SLATEMENET. - :

Petitioners” Statemeat, commencing on page 3 of the

* Petitiou, is substantiaily corrects but Respondent) supple

Pee eee - eas

- .

miehisn sard statement by the foliownre :

wi.

Hy Le hs Bae ea as Baa To. PGR CPT, oP

Petitiogers have fatled to explain the nature of the

! aye ot ! F

CLIVIV TUPI thightiu to

Hey cotiplaints ii the District Courte

ese > os ‘se r Pie wats Te Pee ! FESi5

following pemissauee of ie Portad-to Portal Net. Phiese con

. 2 s ‘ : .

lhe Ht Ae se ' 2 ne Se arate +] ‘ : }

~ohdsted CHSCs WET Penaino@ Wiese tne 4Act- Was Pissed.

5 ‘ - : © at > r

‘ threvibvceettertant a Vives Whe eek ‘ P ; ¢

Ryspendent Pirserreadbart aces miiended 1S ehin wer te lec thie -

. : . 4 ’ e i - a }

provisions Of the Net, and-particulariv Sections 2 and

4 ;

ae ‘ Sere e

P * Pdr Yo) \ - ihe | . . re . ?

J thereat (iS ig !- \\ MPeuUpa ly, Tht | ebitianers amended

- -

’ = a a ES 3 v ry ° si . }

Their copiplaints ty MON, ainene other things, that

is : ; \ *

veel = 7 ‘ esate $ | m9 ay - i :

‘ thie Calise~ Of cestyeatn fal thre Varrious pelouinidatds TiVGadIVe oi

Prati lits : ri? ee fosa] ? 1} . ‘

HDTV @FEsile oO ‘ ‘ itdidre of ee erplever to pay

EE ee

gr wih awetrwits atch ts ehonced iti prior a) Mba 14, I 17. when

Wid aetiIVItY Was comipensabke by either a ee custony

or praytice "> and be further alleging that the’ activity

loro ow hicd thie metion ds bereonauedes Wis enuvuged in hy. the

Niirlais employers during the portion “of. the’ dais: with

y ee oe a ° re Oh | da . ;

qu Wiiteeh@it Wipes: sc) tricteds conipensd ble iis ashbave set

> “3 7

t

tih] s pre | : ; ; .

ade re ri ” a,

_ e , °

“ ‘ il alas mee ;

| CLitientiesr~ Gltavead gar evgalernee to suistalti either of

tTies Cpthagtaeh Gal Hestsations sited wetter the Alaster nor. the

Diatris f Court nitde ANA findine of faet that ststains therm:

' t

nuk, On The contrary, expressly foundthat such activities

OWHEESS FES competsabte eyihey hy cOontraed CUstoln, or periie

i* - obee agen i eS *

(est Es eh By acva * P : F °

ae . :

, z Py ' . . 4 - Ps ~

Hespandent does net agree with the Femiark oigde on

i pre a= <da6 . ape : a ; in P x E

Petitioners stutoment thy He metividies im question

were seeclosely relsted te ae ip primary activties as to be

in dutewral part of theme's ner with the Hiplication that,

df Tound ee oe thes wet mot he teirred ‘hy Section

Soot the Portabto: Portal et. .

es 4 2 *

SEMMARY OF ARGE MENT

ri ]

. . Ci e

‘ Padi | Me Mice iif if a bidgeonne ete fe prove thie (es

baal eebleoerutiatis of ther ‘i meeded: Cornipilatiab Whieh al

Titra conlolanated

‘ . s. : ' * . ,

ae ‘ pop stetioe abl bij ftraf UH) CT EV ITT: Wale:

fis atin, aaa te 1,

13 tga CoE EL PCs ~ Cla pig fT } ! ' ' | “5 4 ‘

} : } . } HRB Bb ye j qitt fa Lald ic} Wl h) T'e

ieter | tt) ‘\ nT be a Prints Wit tis? md © I! peti copnponsabile. Phiey

! i ~% { ‘ \ 4] j . ‘

94% : r J ‘ iy? Mice Aeon 4 ‘ ,

Padbat"y fed Teperye CEOS PICU ATIONnS ania Thie Msastey ‘

. = ‘ . 4

. 5

Metraet oT seit” Vie 4 af ;

| ! ' Court ane a US ee Oras faurt «af Viorends Tess’:

~ s & 5

' shit { ! ] ET Lilie

°

-

:

- -

° a .

.

al .

on . -

. e 9 md

$ *

Lethe 4

o , : : ~~

(2) | se

iven though the Master and District Court found that

all of the activities involved herGin were ‘working time’’,

nevertheless ti PeCoVvery therefor is barred mnder the pro-

Visions of Section 2’of the Portal-to-Portal Net, because

ey ° .

hot triade: compensable hy contract, custom or pracsice.

(3)

o

: 4 2 ‘ P oS ‘ . ‘

There is HO merit i Petitioners contentions that: See

tions 2 and.4 of the Portal-to-Portab Act are substantially

identical in meaning and language ard ‘that ‘identical

, oa ; 3 :

~ problems arising under them demand identical treatment’’,

| 3 ee 7%

The Cirentt Court of Appeals for the Kighth Cireugt .

corrpetiy construed the provisions of Section 2 of) the

Portal-to-Portal Act and properly held that all of the ae-

tivities involvedgin these cases are barred under its pro:

, conthict between its decision in

visions: and there is nd ¢

these cases and the decistons: in other Cireuits cited by

Petitioners, and no conflict with this Court’s decision in

Shi Med y. Mit jiedl. mira, :

(.))

The decision of the Citeumnt Court of Appeais for the

Kieht ¢ Ireqyt In the instant causes does not contliet with.

the .decistgtis af this Court in Arwonur & Company Vv.

Woantor i ‘ fal. iufra, arial ‘Sh id mane v. Sreif X ie ea infra,”

for the reasom thet the latter Wo Coses Were’ decided’ be-

fore the enastment of. the Portal-to-Portal ‘Aet and were

not subject to the provisions Of that Act: but the é¢laims and

aetivities Involvid in the-instant eases are subject? to ls

2

. 1 ea ‘ te ‘ , ‘ | he ‘ - ?

pravisions atid a recovery theretor barred hy Section 2 af

‘ fie BYos

A)

a {} }

Potitione rs’ argument that the result re ached hy the

7 iehith LD ireuit Court of Ap pedals Hi the: instant: cases pre,

ecnis a proh Lenn of erent Hnportance ite the future vad

hiinistration of the Pair Labor Standards Act and the

Portal-to-Portal Aet is wholly without merit. This Court,

in Steuer vio Mitchell, tufra, lias already seta wuidepost

for the future determination DS the Federal Courts of

claims or issues arising under Section 4 of the Portal-to-

Portal’ Act: and the decision of the E ivhth Cirenit in the

instant cases is in-harmnony With the meginiug and applica

~ tion of Section 2 of ‘the Portal- to-Portal Act as expressed

by this Court in the Steiner Case.) :

’

—

mS )

oad

5

g eo,

e:

iy oh a 6.

- ‘ ARGU MENT

a= ; 1 - : : : , . .

. , P - j " ‘ . :

THE PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO SUSTAIN TITLE .

1 « BURDEN OF PROVING THE ESSEN CIAL ALLEGATIONS

. * * OF THEIK AMENDED COMPLAINT

It was by virtue of the allegations of Petitioners’

Tinended Compl@int alleging that (1) ‘the. causes of ae-

tion of the various plaintiffs involve a Jiability arising

ww.

out of the failure of the ciiployer to pay for an “activity so. |

engaged in prior to May 14, 1947, when said activity: wag.

COMIpe snsable by either a contract, custom: ar practice’? and,

F). that **the cats for which ‘the action is breught,

Was engaged in by the various emplovees during the por-

tion of the day ae respect to which it Way so made com-

pensable as above set out’? that the Cireuit Court of Ap-

*peals for the Kighth Cirenit, in its: opinion in 197 Fed.-

(2) 458, reversed the, action af the Distriet. Court in dis-

missing, on Mareh 5, 1951, Petitioners’ Complaints and

— CHUses of action herein for’want of jurisdiction, the Cirenit

Court of Appeals holdi ae ‘that the Petitioners. Were en-

titled to an opportunity to prove, what they had alleged

(Appendix: B, Petition28).. Yet, although Petitioners have:

heen able to keep these CSCS on the docket for ten years

after the effective date of the Porti-fo-Portal Act, <olely

by reason OF The faregolie allewations contained im their.

sinended complaint, they. wholly failed on the trial before

the Master to prove such ‘allegations nud the Master se

found in his Findings of Facet (Par. 7, RL 1823), whieh were

adopted hy the District Court: (Re S34). Onn this issue

the Uirenit Court of Appeals for the: Biehth Cirenit,

reversing: and femanding this wause for dismissal, said:

“Tnoour presemt cases the Clatmants have fasled

to establish that their chums fall within any. of the

——_ fi2

\

2h

exceptions of Scetion 2 (of the Portal: ty- Portal Act).

No vontract, €ustont or practice to pas for the ae-

tivity Claimed has been established, The Alaster and

the trial court so found. We Weree.’ (Appendix B, -

Petitions? ) | :

d

ae : II

ye ¥

DESPITE A FINDING OF FACT AND.A CONCLUSION OF

LAW THAT AGL OF THE TIME INVOLVED IN THESE

CASES CONSTITUTED WORKING TIME UNDER THE

‘. DECISION OF ‘THIS COURT IN SKIDMORE V, SWIPT

XoCG., INFRA, \ RECOVERY THEREFOS. IS BARRED RY .

SECTION LOOK THE PORPAL-TO-PORTAL ACT

Having failed to-establish the essential allegations of

their amended Complaint, the Petitroners now fall back

upon the contention and argument that, since the Master

and ‘District Court found ‘that all of the activities, for

for which judgments > were rendered herein constituted

work or ‘working time’’, it. follows: | (1) that such -ae-

tivities are ain integral part of the principal activities of

the respective cliimants and (2) therefore are Hot barred

hy the provisions of Sectron 2 of the Portalsto-Portal Act.

This contention ¢s showneby the following quot: iPlons 4 ke nH

from the P etition :

‘These emp lovers believe if fair to say that

the activities in (uestion were so closely related to

ctheir primary activities as to bean integral part of

them’? (Peétition,7.) ;

“They (sucht activities) are so necessary to and

so closely related to the principal activity as to be

an integral part of it fmd compensable as sneh.’’

(Petition,ts.) ‘

= “Tn the instant case the activities in: question

have hoon found as ai faet to he RECESS SALTY: to the

performance of the prime ao activity and an ategqral

part oft. > (Petition,17.

oe

r

<: 8

That patrt OL the dast statement wiielr we linve placed

in italies is misteading because it savs that the Master and

Distrigt Court found as a fact that the activities upon

which these claims are based were ‘tan integral party” ey

the rinei pal activity of each of the Gaimanuts. There Is

no sueh finding of, the Master or District Court and we

challenge ‘comuse! for. Petitioners fo “ite wn finding of

fact If the record to sustain the challenged statement. The

record will disclose uo use of the ‘expression ‘integral

part of the priniepal activity’? by either the Master or the

District Court. 7 ; 7 |

The findings of fact which the Master and. District

Court made with respect to these various activities were

simply that they ‘constituted work or ‘*working time’’.

(Par, A-6, R37; Par. B-6, R.WO: Par. C5, R.142; Par.

K-4; B.151,) ae | i ie

In the Conclusions of Law ef the Master (which were

LP he ]

also adopted by the District Court, R.334), the\ reference

‘to sneli uetivittes is tu this laneunee: \

er: ‘ \

ATL of the activities of the respective plaintiffs

for which recovery his been allowed under the Find:

ings af act herein constitute workiig tire, Wndy as.

~ . such, are compensable and are not barred ly, the

provistous of the Portal to- Portal Act; under ‘the

decision of the U.S. Cireuit Court of Appeals for

fhe Michth Cireuit in the fatlowing cases: Central

Missourt Telephone Co. v. Conmeeil, 170 Fed. (2)

641: Glenn Le Martin Nebraska Co. vo Culkin, 197

Med. (2) 981; and In the decision of the Supreme

“Court of the UsS., in, the case of Skidmore ve Sicift

-@ Cae 393 TS: 134, 89-L. ed? 724°" Giahes ours)

(R.dod-108.) :

nit

e *

z °

e °

Central Missouri Telephane Coov. Conwell, supra, and

+? a ° > ; ‘ . ‘ ” -

Taflen i Marydin Ne hrasha ¢ Pome “a ( nl beiu. SUPT: “are (lis-

rea, fopeiey Uh ; | ‘ Ron

twieviishiwole Prom the distant cases. aT those CiSeS, the

’

.

e

;

“e | : . 9

principal duty or prinary aetivity of the telephone opera

tors im the first case amd the guards im the second case

was the passive act of watting, In the language of this

Court,.in Shidmare vi Soci & Company, sipra, ue Chip

pioyvees in the latter cases ‘swere cneaged to walt’. Phe’

telephone operators. whe on duty were waiting for calls

‘to come tn and the guards waiting for some infraction

of the rules adopted for safety measures or against’ sabo-

tiige, That was what they were hired to do. Sinee the

telephone operators, while sleeping, were required 10 ane

-wer incoming calls, and guards, while eating, weré re-

quired to be armed, in uniform, and on the alert, the Court

held that they were entitled to‘compensation therefor, since

they were, during all of the time, of duty performing the

rervy work or activity which they were employed to ha,

e Almost 906° col the total recovery in the inste nit: TUSOS

is for activities sucleas those*appearing in the footnote

“Ff page BO of Ay popoe Helix B to the Petition wil the 7! = rin-

ute riding time atlowed the cuards and mentioned in thre

text on the same page, . of, -

A Handing In the instant eases that a certain activity

coustitiited werking time ds not eqnivalent to. a finding

that such avetivity -is an integral part ef the claimants’

principal activites. The expression ‘working time?’ to des-

inmate the various activities for whielt a recovery Was stis

fatned, was used throughout fhe decisions of ‘this

‘ alge)

Court oin the followine eases’: Armour & Co.

» ue .

aa

Wantock, ‘ Fant: mat te 176 a 1144 y's Shidni Sh eet Nyaciff

. e.% os \ ? - thee 7

& ('0., 823:°U.S, 184 (1944): Anderson 'v. Mich mons: Pal

-

eo

fory Ca, 828 TS, GSO (1946), “ALL of these cases were

deeided before ana involved eladiuis piste Prlor to thie

Passage of the Portidl-to Portal | ts “and, althoneh all

fhe time involved in those cases’ was found to constitute

working fine. the expression “integral peart of the prin-

cipal aétivitv’’ will not be formd-in those decisions. ‘The

“>

i>

:

‘ * 2 : ae ware es ). BAR ee : |

si{@rmexypression Gailge dito Use, PY Tie courts folro Wit the

Miinaiitve 3] thie Portal d ' bast tal A i “nid When properly

: epinlaved Wires lesead fo chesrerinade itt rehiviiy Whiteb, ltr eh

. ven biise, Wits so lOaSeIA redated lei tite principal ACTIVELY

iif theclatuiant as lio 1% nat Helin ne fiscbele part thereat (such

as (ye cactivity of kifesshafpemug in Mitehell vie King

Packbrgk a, B50 tee M60). the right to recaver for which,

as orertime wider Section Af tie Portal to-Portal Act;

Wasuot dependent upoma showing ticet it Was compe tisable |

weder a eontract, cust or prac tice.

‘Petitioners contend that ee aes are governed shy

Steer vo Mitéhell, 350 U.S. 344, 1 whieft this Court held

that clothes changing cined diay. ander the tacts (lis-

this By fie latter CHS, constituted an integral” part of

\

~

compensable as wopking time even th medi there, Wis no

contract, custom or practice to pay therefor, and that such’

claims were not bar reel by Sectian 4 of bie Portal-to- Port: il

Net, Petitioners’ Contention is Un Seu al for the hollowing

rehsons:® (1) on finding that the respective activities of

the PetMioners constitute working tiima is not equivalout

tea fitedie that,suele activities are an nitegrak part of

the chatisents? respective principal HeLIVELLES 3 (2) there.

fustriet Court that the™ietivities for wiheh a recovery. Es

souedif @eustibuted HW ¢

nieeral reared af the prinetpal ae

ties of U1 coOPettiion ers; (.

) even Lf thre were a finding

that sueh ae fiy yties con Mute dian intewrs! part of the Peti-

. “ } - :

Hiogier® pringipal activities - they world nevertheless be:

. y . ae .

etrred under the provisiotis of Section 2 of the Portal-te-

ortid Aet, ~inee they Was re cpiert nine CONE! pe It: able Sy COT:

trac - scnston oP Practice for These C@gses are reverned

Neotion

mot the: Portalto-Portal Net and not by Section

whieh wasn volve di n Stearn we Miteha i, SH PE,

o

the. principal aCUVETY of the claimants rhe Was the ‘refore

“is no finding fm the present eases by the Mater or the -

cal

ae Sie eae Tt. oh as :

Fa ?he burdes Wibse JT Petitioners to prove: the esscitial

nlewations of ther amended > Comptaing. Thev: have not:

sts! juined such’ burden nor fiave they shown that. the

hietthy CHrenit’s decision is clearly érfoneous cunider the

provisions of Rule 52 gf the Federal Rules of Civil Pre-

celgre. 62S Ge Gel’. Se Rules 2.) - ; . ?

| ae :

; THE DECISYA. BECOW IS CLEARLY CoEeCT. ALL

oe Ob TEER ACTIVITIES © FOR WHICH A RECOVER Y 18

™ SOUGHT ARE BARRED BY SECTION 2 OF THE

PORTAL-TO-PORTAL AUT

: ‘Me pose ;

Petitioners naively argue that there is no substantial

diffe ‘rence di the ineafiing or effect of Sections ~ and 4

of the: Portal-to-Portal Net, We quote from their Petition:

“The tWO sections are obviously substantially

identical in “meaning and Janguage and identical

problems arising uuder them demand identieas

treatment. - :

“Netthon the. provisions of the Act’ nor’ .the

reasons for the “Act Justify a. different treatment.

Warder thatwo sections ‘for the, sume activitue Sec

ton? relaTgg to activities performed prior to Mav 14,

P47, and Section 4 applies to ae tivities on or aft

Mav. 14, Ihe. Et seers: ineoneeivable that the

Cone réss would have ieaaa that the same

eet iva

edyipensable after May 14, 1947, but not compensable

beware May 14, 1947.7" ( Petition.)

is pirstied iy thie SHie cM plovee woenld bee

Obviousiv, Petitionors rest their eases upon the above

confention.® To amounts to saying that Congress did a

Po

Poegs A : ae * 4) : soe

hitile thing om the passive of the Portal-toPorteal Act. The

Po Ciremt Court of Appeals for the Fiehth Cirenit. in its

recent decision in Dunning v. The 0. Or, nance Or po

afion, 203 Fed. (2) 902, Gh: anded down.ot rehenrine erated

,

—~ = hha ‘

nifer. its, decision mi BUS fe odo (2) 929 following the de

- 9

7 = |

oe

[oe ’ A 7 ~

~

©

cts kopy Of thas: 4 ‘ourt ine Sleiner v. Vitehell, 30 US: 241,

eid Mir bellow. Ning Pacheun sah acu rd) US, 260),

cleanly rary omni zed the distine tron be ‘tw ‘on the twe scetions,

nnd thei iv li Trerent purrpeses and ctteats. Anil i Hits Opi

joa in the se Consolichited cases, the Kiehith Cire uit. lites dis-

cussed the provisions od The two sectIONS In some detatl

and Hes corres tly held that it was the intent and purpose

of thie (Toneress to bau under Section 2 all claims for all

activities not cofipensable hy contrfet, custom: or practice

and arising: ae to the enagtment of the Portalto-Portal.

Act; and 3 Tithe: site thine the (‘ourt, in “Its opinion in

the insti int cases, quade the comment that if these cases

rere gqurerhed hu Section 4 gestead of Section 2 of the

Aet it would have felt commelled te held that’ the single

activity of clothes-schangine and hathine Involved in a

small proportion of these consolidated cases “would ate

heen recoverable on the theory. that such activety would

have constituted an integral part of the’ principal activity .— >

of ‘the emplovecs Whe CNEL ul the Fe in although there Was

no contract, Custom or pratetice to pay therefor, (Ap-

pendix B, Petition 33.) .

Anil ith Steiner \ : J Mit ka ff. Supra, this tc: aunt recog tal zed

that the yrimary¢purpose of the Congress in pasting the a

Portal-to-Portal Act was ‘to meet an “eNEsting emergency?

_esulting Prom clans which? it allowed ih aceoribainee with .

Anderson Mt. Clemons Potts ry Cam pany, O28 U.S. 680,

would have created ‘wholls unexpected Tabilities, immense.

in amount medoretroactive in operation’. Eleis ULpose

Was fulfilled T@Mhe enachuent of Section "RRR |

-

: “ .

Then this Court potite e ont thi ‘ Rakice 4 of the Act,

Wliich eoverned the activities involved in the e@laimis in

Stedare r v. VMitehell, pe rmnitted a recove ry “where the LY are

iy inte@ral part ot and Indispensable o the principal

activittes eyed thoueh not tiie econimpensable hy eorl ract,’.

eustonrt or practice,

she tt

7

9

. oy Pe ae ey :

7 ee Petitioner

Cus . >

rs Tr th Hr Petition here - Petition.) } Sav:

This ( ‘ourt lisis breedel ies the aetivitpes in Tues

g. iol EOL un ager Section 4 of the % ortal-

te-Portal Act. There is no substantial difference be-

. tween the provistons of Seetion 2oand: Secon 4, and

thiere Is ne justifieationr for eiving a ditptont tregt-

ment to these activities under Section 2 than they pe-

Ce ive under Section 4.7" a ,

We cha Hengwe this statement on two Grounds: First,

Leemtust: this: Court has never ‘he dd th: ‘tall off the attivities

-mThvelved in these Cases soul | he recoygrible if Section 4

voverned ne Issues Herein, Nearly 90° of the total suri

volved in the judgments hereta represents recoveries

fir walkine, riding. waitlue for buses, whloadine fron.

busesceied Walling to clock out, ete. (See text and feotnote,

Appendix Boon page SQ of the Petition.) > These aretypical

-prefitiunary ane postiminary activities which are barresl

even under Sectloh 4, unless Smade compensahl e

hv contract, eustom or practice, . Aid Second, Jecause

Petitioners are saving, in oeffect, that the Court was not.

y istified In Ws Optom ta Stetver ve Mitehell, in makine a

stindtion he tween thet prrpeases and effects of Sections

2 jd 4s ; Ses .

°

ih

The Chie! Pusties, in thie O1UNON ink Steiter Wes Maiti hell,

se

«ited the colloguy between Senator Cecptr and other Sen-

e . i . ! a : q

ators in the Senate when Senator Cooper Was speaking on

vehalf of the Cominittee “Bill to stew ‘that it was thre

intent of the Coneress to preserve causes af action under,

future chains arisine nider Section 4 based Wen an ae

tivitys whieh Wits rt intewral partoof the principal Retivity *

of CNC AEOSECY (Sco Appendix to opinion ln Steiner vy,

Matehe ye 5 H s ‘ie hope Poh. )

Therem. args of Senator Cooper and the questions pro-

. 4 ; :

sortnde a to yj 1hy¥ hey Mr: Ve ir: nth nied ALY: Bsitkles Were

. b . ‘

(

y Z © 14 os - - 7 : ; : : %

rll ilirected te t4yi cal yt ancl Pils pros: N of Si chiow t sic

its a ‘Thee Noah activitS Which colistituted an Integral part

of ‘the

prelfininary statement of Air. C voper fonnd af page 2296s

/

af Volume 92, Part. aay OL the € OUSTESSION, il Ree ord which

ringipal activity. This is clearly Show? by “the

preceded the aforesaid colloquy, namely: Mr Pre sident,

should Snow lie to pass fo the provisioies of the Gill as-.

else elaine.” eRe we

Ef it be kewtpin mind- that the expression * principal

ee “is nowhere found in any provision of Section 2°

tf the Portalto-Portal Aet bit that its use is confined tte

' Che provisions of Section 4 of the Net, it apparent that

the expression ‘‘igtegral’ part of the principal activity’*

should not be used in connection with any claim arising

niider Section 2, but cis properly apphed only te: elaiins

avising under See tion, + for it was the intent of the Con-

*%

gress, to bar under Section 2 all claims for *any activity

(all aetivitios) net compensable he contract, custom: or ,

practice witliout regard fo whether or not such slams

hk & or we ie pat based nparie ob dre Ly pe: wf achinity which °

hey intended te, preserve mniler Section 4 wands , the de fing- .

tion of “T‘utegral part of tire primecipal activity’ a If this

ix ey in rimad, the infention of © OHLress witlt respect 40

the ait ‘ferent ‘effect of the two sections is iiimnee ersstal

® - a :

clear, : ;

: °

‘Tn the course of the opiuon it Shi iner Vv. Mitchell, this

Court sail: | — , is

‘On the whole it is clear, we think, that while

(fongress intended to outlaw chilms prior tp 1947,

for waves based on «@/f ein oie activities wntess

provided. for by eontract or ewston: of the industry,

racdi TE ot ¢ COUTTS. ae fhraitios performed hefore-o7

sitte r regular hours oft work, it “did not interid ty

deprive enplovees of the benefits of the Farr Labor

Standards Act (as to clatmyp arising after the en-

actrent of the Portal-to-Portu! Act) whe re they are

.

»

= % pee 4

cid infernal part of and IndiSpensable Lo their prin

: chp netivities.”* (Ltalies ours.) :

\\ ‘ Gave pgatian cthe Lbe vty ond ise rting in the.nhove

ctuetatio iT 11 eC oparentie iieaal- at: ate Pipe ae ‘as to ¢ lattas aris

he after’ the ‘ Lae ee of the ke ortul-to-P ortal Act’? biee-

Soe At tee rats SA . 2 “

cause ave think yas did’ the Cirenit.! ort of Appeals for the.

ciehitir Cirewit pe its OPInLon in the iuetaut eases, that this

“Court, ino the hetfer part of the above quotation, Was re-

ferrving ee to claims arising under Section 4.° (See Ap-

pe Hain $3, pave S34 oof the Petition. ) é =

Vet ‘ despite ihre decision in Sti hie Biv Miteleell, COUNSEL

bar Petitioners arenes that TH seems imeonceivable that

the Congtess Would have ttended this if the Serre netivitles

pursteel Ly de sce egiployer would be compensable after

May 1. 1947, dnt net compe Misable before May 14, 29477".

a | a 7 ‘

Since thi Ke ‘out, in the Steiner Case, was primarily

concerned with the proper construction to be plaged upon

the provisions, ot Section toof the Portal-to-Poéstal Act

rather than Seetion 2, the Court, i citing amexcenpt from

ihe Seunte debate on tie Conpuittee Bail, referred anly AO a-

ORT §; of the debate dealing with the intent and Peli pase

rv ° ;

of Seetion 4, d Lee Appendix to Op bOn. of the Court

I]

In Shear We VWitglr supra.) We-trust that we will not

belabors the potat Gf owe « some additional excerpts

tte Patican bast hy the Llonee

é sh Pega 4 a aes =f SN) Fs AERA pe Sy ERE a, F :

nnd the Seinte to show conpelusively What Was Hi the rripnied.

from: the debate on the Corl

of the Congress In passing ®eetion 2 ef the Portal-to-Portal

eae

Nae |

e

. .

. ‘- i x 47 1 ban | . nd “7

Wie Gwenn fad been the anthor of the orteial bill

: A ry 2 °

» ‘ ’ | -—-_ | d 4 ‘ Fi P

in the Elotise GEER 2I5ST) and Pad been Gne of the House

Conuuittes whielr bad conferred ‘at leneth with a Senate. «

pranegt ten OTe af. WIG i rietuibed = Was Senator (Cooper, in.

order ‘t@try sta harmnefize the views of the Plouse and

- ee - . 4 2 > . . . se

Sonate. with Tyets dite | 1 thie PELOVISIOUS Of they Proteases

be . .

e

Portal- to-Pr et: al Act.- -As 2 result of the conferences bee

tween these twe, conimittecs, a final bill, later referred to

‘as the Coinmittee Bin, was drafted which enibodied es-

<utt ial elements of ‘the original House Bill and the Senate.

Bill. Section 2 of the’ ‘ommnittee Bill, in substantially” the

same form, had. been a part of the origimil House, Bill;

While that prevision which beeame Section 4°of the Com-

mittee Bi was a part of. the Senate Bilk After the two

committees had agreed upon the Committee Bill, Mr.

(iwynne undertook to exp slain its provisions to the Flouse, ”

and We now quete a statement made by him:

Mr. Gwanne of lowa. Mr. Speaker, fam sure.

every person connected swith this conference will

agree that we had acfall and’ free conference. |

shall explain very briefly what is in the conference

report, comparing it as far as possible with the pro-

es Visions of the Orig tna bill.

“

“The first part of the bill havd to do Sih | exist

dng Portal-to-Portal claims which vou will reeall are

defined as Causes of action arelaims seeking pay

for activities, which activities at the time they were

performed were not compensable, vither by custom

or pfactice mm the employment, or by contract be-,

tween, the employer and the emplovee or his repre-

sentative. ee Q “

“The bilas i comes trom. the conterence bans

ail ertisting chains of Sita fF characti i, It provides

that the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain

suits orrenter any judgment whatever in this type -

of case. That is substantially the same as the érig-

eas House provision.’ Congressional Record; Vol.

, Part At, page ASSS, ;

And’ we again quote Mr. Giivnt he:

“Mr. Gwvitie of Lowa. [ vield to the gentleman

a s

from Georgia,

“Mr. Pace. It was not entirely clear. to me.on

the Portal-to-Portal pay what was «out, with the |

ot

«

future 4unidling ot ‘those lain: s that dumediately

precede the inoment of ermploviment, hot the w: alking

and the riding, but the pac Jiminaries ‘to start work.

Wohint disppsition did thie combttee” of conte Pence

make ot thyeat type at claim?

yl Gwynne of fowas Phat typeof Portal to-

Portal claim is bar red. Ino existing clays, the: en-

thre time bs bear red, even thoueh the so- calked: Portal-

a 28 to“Portal. Gitlin: lay ‘rise in the middle of the dl: Ay,

| ditine the loyrs for which the tan is e Inploved. .

. :*? hip.) Paee, % eu thaw tt involyes the Jayving

out 4f work the man. ts-goine to undertake in the’

: He xt few unnutes, the laving out of edirme nts ty work

on that elaim would he barred?

+4 Mr, Gwynne of fowar Et is barred unity: 8 ave

Wiis nny aeree me nt ‘Or custom te y pay for it. (om.

vresstonal: Record, Vol.. 93, Part 4, page, 4580,

And the followine quotas mods taken from Up col.

cloguy between Miy PLinshaw and Mr. Watt rin the House

during discussion of the Committee B at:

an : As Ms Tinchaws— "The elias ase renuerbers the

Cases known as the vst: mid-by cases which were

brought out before his committee in which certain

tuplovees melt be called Upon at sometine. vot

during their regulir working time to perform some

duty and that may suits for waees have been in-

stituted under thiat vp ‘oft Claim. fs that provieed

for mm the preseut Dill? r

“Air. Walter: ren we feel that under the

lnngnuage of Section 2 (bh) of tiie bill thief type of

arrangement is COVE ‘red aud Ghat thy employer in wel

liahiv.’ (Ttalies’ ours!) €' OWZFESS1ON; ial Record, Vol.

G30 Part 4, page 4989, ot I

gate, a “We now rs to the debate in the Se nate on tie Com

uttee Bill or Mahone Ww ohiad au “t read the provisions

of Section 2 (a2) and then made a comment thereon as fal

* ‘ .

lows:

.

. 8

ie,

i . -- og8:

‘"Poony mind, thet languawe has onky one mean-

ing. It says: in eonumen parhanee, ‘oat the Fair

Labor Standards Aet, the Walsh-Healey Act. and

the Bacon-Dawis Net eave certain stathitory rights

to workers paneb bt also Savs thi at @iiose rights which

/ oinay have seerned under those particular laws priot

; i) thie “Laan Cth whi « hh this hil] hecomies Law are to he

Withebrawt tuiless they tall into catewories (1) and

(2) there referring to the provisions. of sub-para-

eraphs (1) and (2) of Section 2 (497). Am ko cor:

ret dhout that 2" '

Mr, Cooper. There is absolutely no question

about the answer to the question, which is that af.

the-activity for whiely the workér claus conipensa-

fion Was not compensable under a lcustom or con-

tract, aud of Such activity ocurred prior to the date

of enactment of this Aet, the, employee eannot re-

cover mininium Wages, cannot recover ove time com:

pensation, cannot recover liquidated damages. That

is the purpose of thas Rin” (Italics, ours.) Con-

. gresstonal Recerd, Vol. 98) Part 2. page 2255,

Senator, Pepper of Florida was one of the most -.out-

spoken ‘erities of The proposed Act. Tle was greatly ¢ COR

verned over the fact that the Committee Bill proposed to

Wipe the slate Cheat ot ald 4 latins for “HH ak all activ ities |

arising prior to the enactment of the Comiuiftee Bul, even

: « 1,

though many of the activities so barred -constituted

tivities which were so closely related to the primary duties

1 ba ‘ . : ‘ -¢

or work as the Kis sete Sac as to constitute an Integral es

same. Since engl: for petioners Nace he Sead.

irguinent i the instant cases upon the: contention: that

(1) the activities for whiedi the pe titione ins seek a ree Overy,

were an integral part of the respective principal activities

in which. the ‘vowere emploved, wnicd | (2) thit it was’not the

intent of the Congress in the enactment tof Section. 2. of

the Portalte-Portal Act to Mira clatm based upon Sich

.

.

\

an

quote from Senator Pepper's remarks:

19,

detivitv, we ask the indulgence of the Court wine we

© ‘

eM br Pepper ee

- EP cite a sécond Wlustration, @iven net by the

Senator from Mhorida, Hut hy the ofonittee itself,

its entitled te Car; penisartion ae. 4

ss .

En’ "thie CARE of earine nt worker in a tex-

tile mill, who is pease to report SQ minutes

before other employees report to conimence their

principal aetivities, and Who'during such 30 min-.

ites, distributes clothing or parts of clothing at

the work benches of other euiplovees and Gets -

taachines i readinéss. for operation by other em--

ployee, such activities aire “among the principal

activ lies of sweh employe e. ;

“And i “interpolate, hy: the committee itsed,

declared to be uethe future part of this act, subivet

lo compensation; yet they are denied cimpensation

under the part of the statute recommended ye the

comiid ter that deals uw ith vaisting clatins,

tt Meee Presielert, that-is nof portal-to-portal;

this is not a portal-to-portal bill, nat a bilb denying

portil-to-portal claims. This is a-bill which denies.

honest workmen honest pay for the work they have

done, adjudicated. to be due them bw the highest

. . >

court in thise kaye. > os aa .

dy an * President, is that morally, 1 ! hy icaliy,

righ ap hie colin bbber ‘bee these TWO Cilses meray

Ty Way of- illustration. © There. are others —cheek.

ine riaehiners Iny He ig rebefore he begins to

perfornf what are called lus prin%fal aetivities for

pay; adjusting and uu ng ssifety equipment,

After all, Mr. Pre Siders, djs tine and read presting

sateiy equipment ryeyd only saves the reall, it SELVES

the worker fer thy company. He does that, on the

premises of the emntover. Dts red: ation to his work

nan essential way vet he, like the man who cHecks.

rachiiery, Mir. Preside he world bays denied Joy for

. re pe

©

“ .

~U ,

work fe se done, Under the Committee bill. So

lous the tesehil whe adjusts aid rend justs safety

equipment receive from this committee a prohibi-

tion of the collection of bis claim: in the courts

of the land. “Atiother sis one engaged in re-

pairing, oiling, or washing machines. That would

di 6 wyer the committee ball, wait fit nsable int the

future but not compe sable tu the past. Others are

checking and sharpenmey thols; rest periods after

arduous toll; biventory taking; periodical pliysica!

examination when performed upon the piremises of

the euiployer and required by the emplover; travél

time in plants or mines for somie cor siderable time:

cleaning and washing off dirt, andthe like,

“ Phoke are just oa few cases, Mr. President,

whigh hare been all d tomy atteution as claims as

noe “te exvisting rights that will be denied under, the COM-

mittee bill if it shonld be adopted, but would be

‘recognized under the committer bill as to, future

rights, Se Ll say. Hat I’sce no reason whi the

committee should: have made a distinction between

the past and the futire in the recognition of what

MLS compensable works”? (Italics ours, ) Congres-

sYonai Reedrd, Vol. 95, Part 2, pages 2301-2502, -

Thus, Senator Pepper, like Petitioners’ counsel,

argued that he ‘vould ‘see tio reason whit the sommittee

should have made a distinction between the past and future

in -the recognition of what was compensable work’. Pain:

lv, hie was protesting the fact that the Committee Bill, un- -

der Section .2 thereof, was barring a recovery for the

identical activities which the same bill was preserving

under Section 4 thereof as ‘tan integral part of the prin-

cipal gible! Ka Nevertheless, Congeess enacted the Com-

mittee Bily inta, law as the P Orn rl- to- Portal Act of 1947, over

the protests of Senator Pepper and its other opponents

in the House and Senate. |

. ? . . . * . * c

It is, therefore, clear that it was. the Intent of: Con-

s to bar, under the provisions of Sectiog 2 of the Act,

Ws

a

a’

a

»

coo

, 91 w ‘ aa

| | °

all claiuis for or on atvcount of auy activity (all wotivitir s)

of an euiplover engaged in prior to the date” of the en-

cactment of the Portal to-Portal Act cept aun activity

Which was’ compensable. by either ‘contract, custom: or

ba . &

Priehice re a .

bcp ee IV

2 %s

THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF DECISIONS BETWEEN THE

CIRCE IT COURTS OF “APPEAL

°° On page S of thie Petition itis asserted that tte de-

‘cision of the Kighth Circuit. in the instant cases is inf direct

coutlict with the decision of the Fourth Ctreait-in United

States Steel C by . ~ Burkett. 192 Fed. (2) 489; the decision

cof the Sixth ( oo nn Ps FL Stock & Sous, Ine. Thomp-:

osoit, TIA Red. (2) 493; the dec Hshout of the. ‘Seventh Circuit:

in Frank v. Wilson & Co, 172 Fed. ( )), 72; and the decision

of 4hie Ninth Cireuit in Biggs v.xtoshua Hendy Corp, 183

Med. (2) 515. All fonr of these decisions cary be dis-

tinenished fron the dee ‘stow, ti fhe Biehth Circuit in the.

\

inst int cases,

a '

~

In United ‘States Steck Coa, Vv. Burket, the District

Cour found, ‘5. There Wi iSoath express oral contract

between the defendant ane the plaintiffs to pay: the plain- |

tiffs for any overtime which they) worke di as “a patt of

their duties in the capacity In Which’ they were en ployed

and the thirty ininutes before the rewwlar shift and the

fen minnates period after thé regular shift were made com-

** :

pensable by an express contract,

In FLV. Stock & Sons, Lieve Thompson, the District

Cont found as a faet that the original contract of eme-

plovinent muibrac eda forfyarinate lunch period which the-

Company later r, purely as a bookkeeping. transaction, de-

ducted from the 48-hour work week “in an effort to meet

the imimimuans requirements of the Fair Labor Standatds

e*

en ployed. oT ek D

oe)

£ = ma oe .

a . «

7 .

Act, for® a: 44-hour work week, oh Ra ne change Was

. *: i

Atrally mide Mm the avorking habits At the © smnploy e es, nd

Vai they jeoutinned — to-do the same work during the

“forty iT UTES pe riod for Which Mey had oxiginally been

‘Frank +. Wilson & Cou paruy, the, District-t out.

ai oi it the « ove rime javolved in that seit” was COVE RE eu

by the. UXPTESS “provision ‘of oa wTitten contract and. the

Seventh Cirenit; im commenting upon ‘the: testiniony,

stated: .° We Cone elude-that the activities of the plaintiffs

_ were ‘covered by an express ‘provisionZoh j y written cone

traet, and that) the Portal: to- Portal Act of 1947,-is not

nobar’ to: pypseias tering dno’ this action.”

Th Bigas \. Jochea Houdliy? C OF DP, it apears that ‘fap-.

pellants were employed by Ay: pellee pursuant to the pre-

Visions of a collegtive bargaining agreement amd the € ourt

found that ‘tthe work for which: ‘OA POH SATLON is being

claimed is the’ sane Rana of work eis Waals performed

throughout the remainder of ee work ook” |

This #! of the aetivities dav alved in the abeve cases.

were covered by. COWT: act. In the instant Cands there was

iO Contract, custom on pre eTICe to pay for any of the ac

tivities here involved.

Vv

. = i <

oe . . ; ni

SHE DECISION OF TH® EIGHTH CIRCUIT IN THE INSTANT

CASE ROES NOT CONFLICT WITH TILE DECISIONS bp THIS

COURT IN ARMOUR & COMPANY ¥. WANTOCK, ET’AL, AND

. . SKIDMORE Vv. SWIFT & ComMPaNny

Phen ast if of. Aritinr & ‘ (}, » Wantock, qf urd. Ry et ty. Ss.

1h: ernich SMA nov ve Sacift & Co. a ee S43 134. were both

decided prior fo the ta ssnve tie Portal-toll ortak Act.

Counsel for ‘Petitions ‘S arone tae hentuse the decisions

In these cases were based mpom fin dings of fact that afl

s oo. >

- oo. re

: : : a.

of the o¥ertime for whieh, reCovery <Was allewed therein

"Wis * working: time! atid the MM; aster. and thre District

Court in the lasTint cases found likewise, thes a recovery

WIUSt be Sustained’ despite Section 2 of the Portal-to-Portal |

Act. And, he further argnes that, suice the C ircuit Court,

ot the Kighth Circuit disallowed a. recovery in the instant

CASES for the reason that fall such ‘working time’? was |

barred under the provisions of Section 2-of the Portal-

to-Portal Aet, because found by the Master and the Dis-*

trict ¢ ‘ourt hot to be cOMIPe sable by contract, custom or

_ practice, this results in a cotiflict im the. decision of the.

first two cases mentioned with the Kiehth. C ireuit’ s. de-

Cision in the bistant cases, as eid ate

| Bi hhoan argument ix ineffective in the. face of the

Portal-tosP ortal Act and tie provisions of Section 2 The

Armovr and Skidinore-cascés were not controlled by the

Port if-to-Portal Ac ‘, ut the instant cases are.

THERE IS NOAMPORTANT QUES@®ON OF FEDERAL LAW

INVOLVED IN THESE CASES

e

°

Petitioners state in parnugraph 2 bottom of page 10

rn | I

of the. Petition, that ‘ahe. result reached by. the “Highth -

Circuit Court is net only in conflict with the decisions of

other cireaits; and is not only in conflict with the express -

provisions of the Portal-fo-Portal Act, hut it alse presents

ad, problein of qeeal tue portan v? ay the futiere administra-

tion of the Fair Labor Standaris Act and the Portal-to-

Portal Act.” (Ftakies ours.) ne te

And ant the hottom of page 11 of the Petition it is

!

stated, “Consequently, al ruling against. employees for

Meir @vertime: work in the dnstieat case must necessarily

’ . -y / ° . 7 . . 4 0 - ‘oe .

ctl Yor acsitmailar riding in cases arising ander Section 4’.

°

>

We think we havecamiply shown-that there is no merit

17}, :

in the above contention. The action of the Kighth ireuit -

“Court of Appeals in holding that all of the activities: in

volvedcin the instant ¢ases are barred under Section 2

ean have no possible effeet ‘upon the allowance or diss.

allowance of future cases ‘arising under Section 4. We

dhaive ‘Shown that it was. tlhe intent of: Section 2 of the

Portal-to-Portal Act to bar any ane all activities not

couppensable by .vontract, custom or practice and which

were based pen claims. arising prior to the enactment of

that. aet; and that it was dikes Wise the intent of Congress

fo preserve, to. fhe Workers under: the provisions of See-

tion + any activity which is so closely related to a worker’s

principal activity as tos be-an integral part thereof even

though not made compensable by contract, custom or prac-

tices ft. is True that, approximately 90. of the prese nt

claims: involve walking and riding .and other ‘‘activities

Whieli are pre ‘Liniinary on » postliminary?’ to the activity for

which these men wet ‘eo @miploved, and that Section 4. ex.

pressly | WATS walking ania riding time and so-called. pre-

Jinastapary and ‘postliminary, activitte s unlegs such activity

‘is made compensable by contract, custom or practice, but

it saves to the worker the right te bargain for payvinent

of such netivities, and, as we have shown Congress It

tended, and this Court has already held, an activity which

ix an integral part ofsthe principal activity is preserved

ander The Provistons of Section 4 on claims “@risine after

the enactment. of the Portalto-Portal Act, even though

snot made compensable by comtract, custom or practice.

So far as we hate heen able to ascertain, these eon-

solidated CUS ‘are the lest eases pending it any? etreuit:

involving Claims. governed: by Settion 2. We think the

Steiner and King Packing Company cases have already

served as enides for-aftornevs and the courts in determin.

ine’ the law applicable. to Section 4, and further, that if

; oo) ie : .

J owe are niistaken in our belief that these consolidated cases

are not the very last pending in any of the courts invely-

ing Settion 2, then the SteHier decision nevertheless polity

thie Way to oa disposition af those ‘cases, We believe that

thie decision if the Mighth Cireuit (enurt of Appeals Wi

the itistattit Cases heus properly interpreted ‘the decision

of this Court in.the Steiner case, dagul tliat thre opinion of

the Kighth Circuit: in these cases lias stated with efarits

"the daw applieahle to Section 2 of the Portalto Portal Act.

CONCLUSION

..Por the reasons herein stated, it. i« respeetfPuily “sah

mitted that the petition for writ of certiorari heredy’ shout

be cdemted, - : 1 / ae ;

i Respocttully subritited,

+ Henry (.) Wanner, dn,

_. Fivst National Bank: Puildine

Slirevenort,: Lonistiona

: Moone, Beinow, ¢ HOWNING & \Moerecuria

’ Meannk HK. Chowsine

F201 Bovle Building ;

yey Little Rock, Arkansas

tre pened Pas) lig eaTEnT a | if