(a) The coverage of the Act's wage and hours provisions as described
in sections 6 and 7 does not deal in a blanket way with industries as a
whole. Thus, in section 6, it is provided that every employer shall pay
the statutory
minimum wage to ``each of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in
the production of goods for commerce.'' It thus becomes primarily an
individual matter as to the nature of the employment of the particular
employee. Some employers in a given industry may have no employees
covered by the Act; other employers in the industry may have some
employees covered by the Act, and not others; still other employers in
the industry may have all their employees within the Act's coverage. If,
after considering all relevant factors, employees are found to be
engaged in covered work, their employer cannot avoid his obligations to
them under the Act on the ground that he is not ``engaged in commerce or
in the production of goods for commerce.'' To the extent that his
employees are so engaged, he is himself so engaged. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517. See also Walling v.
Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564; McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491;
Mabee v. White Plains Pub. Co., 327 U.S. 178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) In determining whether an individual employee is within the
coverage of the wage and hours provisions, however, the relationship of
an employer's business to commerce or to the production of goods for
commerce may sometimes be an important indication of the character of
the employee's work. 10 It is apparent, too, from the 1949
amendment to the definition of ``produced'' and its legislative history
that an examination of the character of the employer's business will in
some borderline situations be necessary in determining whether the
employees' occupation bears the requisite close relationship to
production for commerce. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Borden Co. v. Borella, 325 U.S. 679; 10 E. 40th St. Bldg.
Co. v. Callus, 325 U.S. 578; Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126;
Donovan v. Shell Oil Co., 168 F. 2d 229 (C.A. 4); Hertz Driveurself
Stations v. United States, 150 F. 2d 923 (C.A. 8); Horton v. Wilson &
Co., 223 N.C. 71, 25 S.E. 2d 437.
11 H. Mgrs. St., 1949, pp. 14, 15; Sen. St. 1949 Cong.
Rec. 15372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
