[Download] "Rogers v. Skinner" by Fifth Circuit United States Court Of Appeals * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Rogers v. Skinner
- Author : Fifth Circuit United States Court Of Appeals
- Release Date : January 29, 1953
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
RUSSELL, C.J.: Appellant, William J. Rogers, is the Regional Director of the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions of the United States Department of Labor, at Dallas, Texas. As such, in the course of the discharge of the duties delegated to him by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, acting for the Secretary of Labor, he directed an investigator on his staff to make an investigation of the facts concerning the work and operations being performed by the appellees under contract with United States Corps of Engineers covering the excavating of a spillway and construction of the Garza-Little Elm Dam in Texas on the Elm Fork of the Trinity River, which was being constructed pursuant to the River and Harbor Act of 1945. In the course of the investigation, such investigator, with the appellees consent, examined certain records, interviewed employees, and advised appellees that under the interpretations of the Department it appeared that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to the work being done there. In this view, the method of payment of overtime, while consistent with the contract computed upon a daily basis, did not meet the requirements of the act requiring overtime for more than 40 hours per week. The Regional Director, upon reviewing the report and securing the advice of the Regional Attorney that the operations of the appellees were subject to the coverage of the act, and in accordance with the claimed authority "to supervise payment of the unpaid minimum wages or the unpaid overtime compensation owing to any employee or employees under section 6 or section 7 of this Act", requested appellees to make the payments to the employees of overtime compensation claimed to be due. Appellees refused, and thereupon the Director sent letters to the employees involved advising them of the result of the investigation and their consequent right to full overtime compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This letter called the employees attention to the statutory authority for suit by, and on behalf of, the employees themselves, but made no reference to any suit by the Administrator. However, one of the employees involved, Hubert D. Vincent, requested institution of suit for his benefit under Section 16(c), supra, and the Director brought this fact to the appellees attention, with the thought that the employers might wish to reconsider their decision of declination to make restitution to the employees generally. This letter called attention to the waiver provisions of Section 16(b) and concluded, "before we take any further action on Mr. Vincents request, may we have your reply by July 10, 1951." These recitals of fact are distilled from the evidence, which, in addition, showed without dispute that the official duties of the Regional Director include advising the public, employers and employees of the provisions of the Act and if and how the Department deems it applicable to them. Where violations are found, he makes recommer dations to his superior in Washington as to what action should be taken. He does not have authority to institute any suit of any kind, nor to bring any criminal action. He follows the Departments interpretations as to the scope of the law and not his own, and as to legal matters must rely on the advice of the Regional Attorney.