Two recent decisions interpret the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act: (1) Previous to the enactment of the act, defendant company paid employees at an hourly rate for an eight hour day, seven day week. In order to comply with section 7a requiring payment of time and a half the "regular rate" of pay for hours in excess of the weekly maximum set by the act, defendant contracted to pay employees for six straight time and two overtime hours each day but at a new, lower rate such that payment at the new rate for six straight time hours and time and a half the new rate for two overtime hours would equal the former daily wage. Held, the new hourly rate cannot qualify as the "regular rate" for compensating overtime in compliance with the act. Walling v. Alaska Pacific Consolidated Mining Company, (C.C.A. 9th, 1945) 152 F. (2d) 812. (2) Defendant's employees were paid a monthly salary for varying hours of work. To comply with the overtime provisions of the act, defendant adopted new employment contracts guaranteeing a weekly wage corresponding to the former measure of compensation and fixing an hourly rate at such a figure that payment of the rate for straight time hours and time and a half the rate for overtime hours usually worked would not exceed the guaranteed sum. Held, the contracts satisfy the overtime requirements of the act. Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, (C.C.A. 9th, 1945) 152 F. (2d) 622.
John A. Huston,
LABOR LAW-FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT-DETERMINATION OF "REGULAR RATE" FOR COMPUTATION OF OVERTIME PAY,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol44/iss5/17