Summary
agreeing with Battaglia v. General Motors Corp., 169 F.2d 254, 259-61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 887, 69 S.Ct. 236, 93 L.Ed. 425, that Congress' retroactive cure of Supreme Court's interpretation of Fair Labor Standards Act did not violate due process
Summary of this case from Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.Opinion
Nos. 9603, 9602, 9604, 9605, 9644, 9645, 9674-9676, 9682, 9683, 9586-9588, 9686.
Argued October 22, 1948.
Decided March 15, 1949.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Robert M. Gibson, Judge.
Appeal No. 9686 from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Guy K. Bard, Judge.
Separate actions by James J. Thomas, District Director United Steelworkers of America and others, against Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, by John Grecula, etc., and others against National Tube Company, by John W. Grajciar, etc., and others against Sharon Steel Corporation, by John F. Murray, etc., and others against Homestead Valve Manufacturing Company, by Clyde Johnson, Business Agent and others of Local 610, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, etc., against Union Switch Signal Company, by Clyde Johnson, Business Agent and others of Local 610, Electrical, Radio Machine Workers of America, etc., against Westinghouse Air Brake Company, by Frank Hill, etc., and others against the Aluminum Company of America, by Frank Hill, etc., and others against Aluminum Cooking Utensil Company, by Frank Hill, etc., and others against Aluminum Seal Company, by Joseph Goney, etc., and others against the American Radiator Standard Sanitary Corporation, by William F. Donovan and others against the American Steel Wire Corporation, by Frank Burke, etc., and others against American Brake Shoe Company, by Frank Burke, etc., against A.M. Byers Company, by James J. Smoker, etc., and others against Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation, wherein the United States of America intervened, and by Joseph Molony, District Director, etc., and others against Bethlehem Steel Company and Bethlehem Steel Corporation wherein the United States of America intervened. From adverse judgments the plaintiffs separately appeal.
Judgments affirmed.
Charles J. Margiotti, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Margiotti Casey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Marvin C. Harrison and William K. Thomas, both of Cleveland, Ohio, Harrison, Thomas, Spangenberg Hull, of Cleveland, Ohio, and J. Alfred Wilner, of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellants in 9603, 9605, 9644, 9645, 9674, 9675, 9676, 9682, 9683, 9586, 9587.
Donald J. Farage, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Richter, Lord Farage, of Philadelphia, Pa., Witt Cammer, Milton Paulson and Victor Perlo, all of New York City, on the brief), for appellant in 9686.
Elder W. Marshall, Earl F. Reed and Leon E. Hickman, all of Pittsburgh, Pa. (William D. Armour, John W. Wishart, Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, J. Roland Johnston, and Thorp, Bostwick, Reed Armstrong, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellees in 9586, 9587, 9603, 9605, 9644, 9645, 9674, 9675, 9676, 9682, 9683.
William Dwight Whitney, of New York City (Philip H. Strubing and Evans, Bayard Frick, all of Philadelphia, Pa., and Cravath, Swaine Moore, of New York City, on the brief), for appellees in 9686.
Tom C. Clark, Atty. Gen., H.G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., Enoch E. Ellison, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Johanna M. D'Amico, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., on the brief for the United States in 9586, 9587, 9602, 9603, 9604, 9605.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH, and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
These fifteen cases bring to the Third Circuit the questions concerning the constitutionality of the Congressional abolition of the portal to portal claims which have been so much before the courts the last two years. It is a safe statement, we think, that no legal question presented to the federal courts has had so wide an examination by the federal judiciary over so brief a time as this one. As might be expected, the process of argument and reargument, examination and reexamination, has clarified both the issues and the answers.
There have been forty-two reported District Court opinions discussing and upholding constitutionality, if our count is accurate, and at least eighty-one additional decisions have reached the same result. The matter has also come, by this time, to our brethren in the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits. Eight of the cases in the first three Circuits mentioned were made the subjects of petitions for certiorari and in each case certiorari was denied.
Ackerman v. J.I. Case Co., D.C.E.D.Wis. 1947, 74 F. Supp. 639; Adkins v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours Co., D.C. N.D.Okla. 1947, 13 CCH Labor Cases Par. 64,025; Alameda v. Paraffine Cos., Inc., D.C.N.D.Cal. 1947, 75 F. Supp. 282; Babione v. Pure Oil Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio 1948, 16 CCH Labor Cases Par. 64,922; Blessing v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., D.C.D.C. 1948, 76 F. Supp. 556; Boehle v. Electro Metallurgical Co., D.C.D.Or. 1947, 72 F. Supp. 21; Bumpus v. Remington Arms Co., D.C.W.D.Mo. 1947, 74 F. Supp. 788; Burfeind v. Eagle-Picher Co. of Texas, D.C.N.D.Tex. 1947, 71 F. Supp. 929; Cardinale v. General Motors Corp., D.C.N.D.N.Y. 1947, 76 F. Supp. 743; Cochran v. St. Paul Tacoma Lumber Co., D.C.W.D.Wash. 1947, 73 F. Supp. 288; Darr v. Mutual Life Insurance Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1947, 72 F. Supp. 752; Elting v. North American Aviation, Inc., D.C.D.Kan. 1947, 13 CCH Labor Cases Par. 64,154; Ferrer v. Waterman Steamship Corp., D.C.D. Puerto Rico 1948, 76 F. Supp. 601; Fisch v. General Motors Corp., D.C.E.D. Mich. 1948, 76 F. Supp. 178; Grazeski v. Federal Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co., D.C.D.N.J. 1948, 76 F. Supp. 845; Hart v. Aluminum Co. of America, D.C.W.D. Pa. 1947, 73 F. Supp. 727; Holland v. General Motors Corp., D.C.W.D.N.Y. 1947, 75 F. Supp. 274; Hollingsworth v. Federal Mining Smelting Co., D.C.D. Idaho 1947, 74 F. Supp. 1009; Hornbeck v. Dain Mfg. Co., D.C.S.D.Iowa 1947, 7 F.R.D. 605; Jackson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., D.C.D.Minn. 1948, 76 F. Supp. 121; Johnson v. Park City Consolidated Mines Co., D.C.E.D.Mo. 1947, 73 F. Supp. 852; Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.E.D.Tenn. 1947, 73 F. Supp. 264; Lassiter v. Atkinson Co., D.C.N.D.Wash. 1948, 7 W H Cases 816; Lee v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.W.D. Wis. 1948, 15 CCH Labor Cases Par. 64,700; Local 626 International Union United Auto, Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America v. General Motors Corp., D.C.D.Conn. 1947, 76 F. Supp. 593; Lockwood v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.W.D.Mo. 1948, 78 F. Supp. 716; McDaniel v. Brown Root, Inc., D.C.E.D.Okla. 1948, 14 CCH Labor Cases Par. 64,511; May v. General Motors Corp., D.C.N.D.Ga. 1947, 73 F. Supp. 878; Moeller v. Eastern Gas Fuel Associates, D.C.D.Mass. 1947, 74 F. Supp. 937; Plummer v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., D.C.D.Minn. 1948, 76 F. Supp. 745; Quinn v. California Shipbuilding Corp., D.C.S.D.Cal. 1947, 76 F. Supp. 742; Reid v. Day Zimmerman, Inc., D.C.S.D.Iowa 1947, 73 F. Supp. 892; Redwitz v. Ford Motor Co., D.C. W.D.Ky. 1948, 80 F. Supp. 265; Reynolds v. Rogers Cartage Co., D.C.W.D. Ky. 1947, 71 F. Supp. 870; Role v. J. Neils Lumber Co., D.C.D.Mont. 1948, 74 F. Supp. 812; Sadler v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., D.C.W.D.Mo. 1947, 73 F. Supp. 690; Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co., D.C.D.Md. 1947, 74 F. Supp. 412; Smith v. American Can Co., D.C.E.D.Ill. 1948, 8 F.R.D. 112; Smith v. Colorado Fuel Iron Corp., D.C.D.Colo. 1948, 15 CCH Labor Cases Par. 64,755; Smith v. Cudahy Packing Co., D.C.D.Minn. 1947, 76 F. Supp. 575; Story v. Todd Houston Shipbuilding Corp., D.C.S.D. Tex. 1947, 72 F. Supp. 690; Wan v. E.E. Black, Ltd., D.C.D.Haw. 1948, 75 F. Supp. 553.
Battaglia v. General Motors Corp., 2 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 254; Darr v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 262; Atallah v. B.H. Hubbert Sons, 4 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 993; Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 4 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 58; Fisch v. General Motors Corp., 6 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 266; Rogers Cartage Co. v. Reynolds, 6 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 317, 3 A.L.R.2d 1090; Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co., 6 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 263; Lee v. Hercules Powder Co., 7 Cir., 1949, 171 F.2d 950; Potter v. Kaiser Co., Inc., 9 Cir., 1949, 171 F.2d 705; Role v. Neils Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 1949, 171 F.2d 706; McDaniel v. Brown Root, Inc., 10 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 466.
Battaglia (Holland, Hilger, Casheba) v. General Motors Corp. (4 cases) 2 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 254, certiorari denied (4 cases) 1948, 335 U.S. 887, 69 S.Ct. 23; Darr v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 262, certiorari denied 1948, 335 U.S. 871, 69 S.Ct. 166; Atallah v. B.H. Hubbert Sons, 4 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 993, certiorari denied sub nom Cingrigani v. B.H. Hubbert Sons, 1948, 335 U.S. 868, 69 S.Ct. 138; Fisch v. General Motors Corp. and Bateman v. Ford Motor Co. (2 cases) 6 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 266, certiorari denied (2 cases) 1949, 335 U.S. 902, 69 S.Ct. 405.
Up to now every decision has upheld the constitutionality of the statute. This unanimity of result represents as accurate an expression of the views of the federal judiciary as it is possible to obtain. In addition to this unanimity among District Courts and Courts of Appeals there is the uniform refusal of certiorari by the Supreme Court. We have been taught that a denial of certiorari does not mean Supreme Court approval of a Court of Appeals position. But in this particular situation where there have been eight denials involving the same constitutional question, we think that the series of denials is not without an implicit significance with regard to the Supreme Court's attitude upon the question involved.
The Second Circuit reviewed the constitutional issues in Battaglia v. General Motors Corp., 2 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 254. We cannot add anything new to the thorough discussion by Judge Chase for the court in that case. Nor can we improve upon his language. It would be mere pedantry, therefore, for us to go over the same ground again and we will not indulge in it.
Counsel for the appellants in the Molony case makes the point that his people are entitled to the benefits of the contract made between the employer and the United States in which the employer agreed to abide by all provisions of federal statutes affecting labor — pay, working conditions, etc. Counsel makes the point that this gives his clients rights based upon the contract in addition to rights under the statute. The point is not new. It was raised and answered unfavorably to the appellants' contention in Fisch v. General Motors Corp., 6 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 266, and we agree with the answer there given.
The judgments appealed from will be affirmed.