Under the definitions quoted above, it is clear that the employees
who are covered by the wage and hours provisions of the Act as employees
``engaged in commerce'' are employees doing work involving or related to
the movement of persons or things (whether tangibles or intangibles, and
including information and intelligence) ``among the several States or
between any State and any place outside thereof.'' 23
Although this does not include employees engaged in activities which
merely ``affect'' such interstate or foreign commerce, the courts have
made it clear that coverage of the Act based on engaging in commerce
extends to every employee employed ``in the channels of'' such commerce
or in activities so closely related to such commerce, as a practical
matter, that they should be considered a part of it. 24 The
courts have indicated that the words ``in commerce'' should not be so
limited by construction as to defeat the purpose of Congress, but should
be interpreted in a manner consistent with their practical meaning and
effect in the particular situation. One practical question to be asked
is whether, without the particular service, interstate or foreign
commerce would be impeded, impaired, or abated; 25 others
are whether the service contributes materially to the consummation of
transactions in interstate or foreign commerce 26 or makes
it possible for existing instrumentalities of commerce 27 to
accomplish the movement of such commerce effectively and to free it from
burdens or obstructions. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 ``Any place outside thereof'' is not limited in meaning to
another State or country. Any movement between a State and a place
``outside thereof'' is ``commerce'' for purposes of the Act, such as
ship-to-shore communication, or transportation out of a State by ship of
food, fuel, or ice to be consumed at sea before arrival at another port.
24 Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564;
Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125; McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319
U.S. 491; Boutell v. Walling, 327 U.S. 463; Pedersen v. J. F. Fitzgerald
Constr. Co., 318 U.S. 740 and 324 U.S. 720.
25 Republic Pictures Corp. v. Kappler, 151 F. 2d 543
(C.A. 8), affirmed 327 U.S. 757; New Mexico Public Service Co. v. Engel,
145 F. 2d 636 (C.A. 10).
26 Walling v. Sondock, 132 F. 2d 77 (C.A. 5), certiorari
denied 318 U.S. 772. See also Horton v. Wilson & Co., 223 N.C. 71, 25
S.E. 2d 437, in which the court stated that an employee is engaged ``in
commerce'' if his services--not too remotely but substantially and
directly--aid in such commerce as defined in the Act.
27 For a list of such instrumentalities, see Sec. 776.11.
28 Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125; J. F.
Fitzgerald Constr. Co. v. Pedersen, 324 U.S. 720; Ritch v. Puget Sound
Bridge & Dredging Co., 156 F. 2d 334 (C.A. 9); Walling v. McCrady
Constr. Co., 156 F. 2d 932 (C.A. 3); Bennett v. V. P. Loftis, 167 F. 2d
286 (C.A. 4); Walling v. Patton-Tully Transp. Co., 134 F. 2d 945 (C.A.
6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
