Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.
1944 United States Supreme Court case
Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued October 17, 1944 Decided November 6, 1944 | |
Full case name | Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc. |
Citations | 323 U.S. 37 (more) 65 S. Ct. 11; 89 L. Ed. 29 |
Case history | |
Prior | 138 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1943); cert. granted, 321 U.S. 759 (1944). |
Holding | |
Contracts of employment providing for the computation of compensation on the so-called Poxon or split-day plan do not conform to the requirements of § 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Murphy, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 |
Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc, 323 U.S. 37 (1944), is a US labor law case, concerning the minimum wage.
Facts
The employer, Helmerich and Payne Inc had the practice of paying workers more in the second half of the day than the first, so that overtime on weekends was calculated to the lower rate (clocked premiums) and could not be premium pay, so as to keep wages for overtime the average.
Judgment
Justice Murphy, writing for the majority, held that clock premiums or rolled up pay cannot be treated as premium pay.
See also
- v
- t
- e
Wage regulation sources
West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937)
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 USC §§201-211
ILO Minimum Wage Fixing Convention 1970 (no 131)
Walling v Jacksonville Paper Co, 317 US 564 (1943)
Armour & Co v Wantock, 323 US 126 (1944)
Steiner v Mitchell, 350 US 247 (1956)
Walling v Helmerich and Payne Inc, 323 US 37 (1944)
Portal to Portal Act of 1947, 29 USC §§251-262
Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968, 15 USC §§1671-1675