Walling, Wage and Hour Administrator, v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. (331 U.S. 17)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 14, 1947 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 331 U.S. 17 · 67 S. Ct. 1056
- Decided
- April 14, 1947
- Term
- October Term 1946
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Vinson
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion of the Court. This case brings here a question as to the application of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the payment of compensation pursuant to employment contracts similar to those in Walling v. Belo Corp., 316 U. S.624. Respondent is engaged in the business of cementing, testing and otherwise servicing oil wells, for which it uses its own peculiar equipment. To operate this equipment respondent retains a highly stabilized group of skilled and specially trained “field employees.” The volume of respondent’s business, however, is highly inconstant. Consequently, these employees are required to work a variable number of hours from day to day and from week to week. Prior to passage of the Act in 1938, these employees were paid fixed monthly salaries. Thereafter, they were put on a “weekly-guarantee” plan similar to that which was to be involved in the Belo case. This plan was abandoned March 1, 1942, under pressure from the Administrator of the Act, and reinstated July 1, 1942, after the Belo decision had seemed to end all questions as to its legality. Since its reinstatement the plan has been continuously in effect, and embodied in formal written contracts between respondent and the employees to whom it has applied. The part of these contracts now in issue is respondent’s agreement to pay these employees…
Excerpt of a 19,212-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.