(a) Covered employments illustrated. Some illustrative examples of
the employees employed by a producer of goods for interstate or foreign
commerce who are or are not engaged in the ``production'' of such goods
within the meaning of the Act have already been given. Among the other
employees of such a producer, doing work in connection with his
production of goods for commerce, who are covered because their work, if
not actually a part of such production, is ``closely related'' and
``directly essential'' to it,86 are such employees as
bookkeepers, stenographers, clerks, accountants and auditors, employees
doing payroll, timekeeping and time study work, draftsmen, inspectors,
testers and research workers, industrial safety men, employees in the
personnel, labor relations, advertising, promotion, and public relations
activities of the producing enterprise, work instructors, and other
office and white collar workers; employees maintaining, servicing,
repairing or improving the buildings,87 machinery,
equipment, vehicles, or other facilities used in the production of goods
for commerce,88 and such custodial and protective employees
as watchmen, guards, firemen, patrolmen, caretakers, stockroom workers,
and warehousemen; and transportation workers bringing supplies,
materials, or equipment to the producer's premises, removing slag or
other waste materials therefrom, or transporting materials or other
goods, or performing such other transportation activities, as the needs
of production may require. These examples are intended as illustrative,
rather than exhaustive of the group of employees of a producer who are
``engaged in the production'' of goods for commerce, within the meaning
of the Act, and who are therefore entitled to its wage and hours
benefits unless specifically exempted by some provision of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 See H. Mgrs. St., 1949, p. 14; Sen. St., 1949 Cong.
Rec., p. 15372. See also Borden Co. v. Borella, 325 U.S. 679.
87 No distinction of economic or statutory significance
can be drawn between such work in a building where the production of
goods is carried on physically and in one where such production is
administered, managed, and controlled. Borden Co. v. Borella, 324 U.S.
679.
88 Such mechanics and laborers as machinists, carpenters,
electricians, plumbers, steamfitters, plasters, glaziers, painters,
metal workers, bricklayers, hod carriers, roofers, stationary engineers,
their apprentices and helpers, elevator starters and operators,
messengers, janitors, charwomen, porters, handy men, and other
maintenance workers would come within this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Employments not directly essential to production distinguished.
Employees of a producer of goods for commerce are not covered as engaged
in such production if they are employed solely in connection with
essentially local activities which are undertaken by the employer
independently of his productive operations or at most as a dispensable,
collateral incident to them and not with a view to any direct function
which the activities serve in production. It is clear, for example, that
an employee would not be covered merely because he works as a domestic
servant in the home of an employer whose factory produces goods for
commerce, even though he is carried on the factory payroll. To
illustrate further, a producer may engage in essentially local
activities as a landlord, restauranteur, or merchant in order to utilize
the opportunity for separate and additional profit from such ventures or
to provide a convenient means
of meeting personal needs of his employees. Employees exclusively
employed in such activities of the producer are not engaged in work
``closely related'' and ``directly essential'' to his production of
goods for commerce merely because they provide residential, eating, or
other living facilities for his employees who are engaged in the
production of such goods.89 Such employees are to be
distinguished from employees like cooks, cookees, and bull cooks in
isolated lumber camps or mining camps, where the operation of a
cookhouse may in fact be ``closely related'' and ``directly essential''
or, indeed, indispensable to the production of goods for
commerce.90
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
89 H. Mgrs. St., 1949, pp. 14, 15; see also Brogan v. National
Surety Co., 246 U.S. 257. Cf. Sen. St., 1949 Cong. Rec., p. 15372.
90 See Brogan v. National Surety Co., 246 U.S. 257;
Consolidated Timber Co. v. Womack, 132 F. 2d 101 (C.A. 9); Hanson v.
Lagerstrom, 133 F. 2d 120 (C.A. 8); cf. H. Mgrs. St., 1949, pp. 14, 15
and Sen. St., 1949 Cong. Rec., p. 15372.
Some specific examples of the application of these principles may be
helpful. Such services as watching, guarding, maintaining or repairing
the buildings, facilities, and equipment used in the production of goods
for commerce are ``directly essential'' as well as ``closely related''
to such production as it is carried on in modern industry.91
But such services performed with respect to private dwellings tenanted
by employees of the producer, as in a mill village, would not be
``directly essential'' to production merely because the dwellings were
owned by the producer and leased to his employees.92
Similarly, employees of the producer or of an independent employer who
are engaged only in maintaining company facilities for entertaining the
employer's customers, or in providing food, refreshments, or
recreational facilities, including restaurants, cafeterias, and snack
bars, for the producer's employees in a factory, or in operating a
children's nursery for the convenience of employees who leave young
children there during working hours, would not be doing work ``directly
essential'' to the production of goods for commerce.93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91 H. Mgrs. St., 1949, p. 14; Sen. St., 1949 Cong. Rec., p.
15372; Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517; Borden Co. v. Borella, 325
U.S. 679; Walton v. Southern Package Corp. 320 U.S. 540; Armour & Co. v.
Wantock, 325 U.S. 126.
92 H. Mgrs. St., 1949, pp. 14, 15; Morris v. Beaumont
Mfg. Co., 84 F. Supp. 909 (W.D. S.C.); cf. Wilson v. Reconstruction
Finance Corp., 158 F. 2d 564 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied, 331 U.S. 810.
Cf. Brogan v. National Surety Co., 246 U.S. 257; Consolidated Timber Co.
v. Womack, 132 F. 2d 101 (C.A. 9); Hanson v. Lagerstrom, 133 F. 2d 120
(C.A. 8).
93 Cf. H. Mgrs. St., 1949, pp. 14, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
