Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

BROOKS PACKING CO. v. MATHIS.

(Syllabus.)

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 employee of meat packing plant with duties connected with processing of products for interstate commerce.

An employee of a meat packing industry, whose duties are connected with the processing of grease, tankage and desiccate blood, which products are produced for interstate commerce, is engaged in an "occupation necessary to the production" of goods, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, supra, regulating the hours of service and wages of employees engaged in the "production" of goods in interstate commerce.

OSBORN, J.

This is a companion case to Cause No. 30566, Brooks Packing Co. v. William Wesley Henry, 192 Okla. 533, 137 P.2d 918, this day decided.

The duties performed by the plaintiff herein were not identical with the duties performed by the plaintiff in the above-styled case, but it is stated in the brief of the plaintiff in error that "There is no claim made by plaintiff for overtime labor and services, other than as relate to what is known as B-White grease, tankage and blood, described in the record as inedible, such things as were made from the refuse." In the light of this admission, our decision in cause No. 30566, supra, is determinative of the issues presented herein.

Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the trial court in the instant case is affirmed.

CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, WELCH, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. BAYLESS, J., absent.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BROOKS PACKING CO. v. MATHIS
(May 11, 1943)