Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.
1947 U.S. LEXIS 2957, 67 S. Ct. 639, 330 U.S. 148 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Individuals participating in a training program are not 'employees' under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) if the training is primarily for their own benefit, they work without an express or implied agreement for compensation, and the employer derives no immediate advantage from their activities.
Facts:
- Portland Terminal Co., a railroad, required prospective yard brakemen to complete a practical training course lasting seven to eight days before they could be considered for employment.
- During training, applicants first observed and then gradually performed actual work under the close supervision of a regular yard crew.
- The trainees' activities did not displace any regular employees and their work did not expedite, and sometimes impeded, the company's business.
- Upon satisfactory completion of the course, trainees were certified as competent and their names were placed on a list from which the company could hire when needed.
- Trainees initially received no pay or allowance for the training period.
- Later, an agreement with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen provided a contingent, retroactive allowance of $4 per day for the training period, but only for those who successfully completed the course and were subsequently listed as available for work.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, sued the respondent, Portland Terminal Co., in a Federal District Court for an injunction.
- The District Court denied the injunction, holding that the trainees were not employees under the FLSA.
- The petitioner appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, with one judge dissenting.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) classify trainees as 'employees' subject to its minimum wage requirements when their work is done without an agreement for compensation, serves primarily their own educational benefit, and provides no immediate advantage to the company?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
No. The FLSA does not classify these trainees as employees. The Act's definition of 'employ' as 'to suffer or permit to work' was not intended to cover individuals who, without an express or implied compensation agreement, work for their own advantage on the premises of another. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the arrangement was to benefit the trainees by providing them with necessary instruction, similar to a vocational school. Since the railroad received no 'immediate advantage' from the trainees' work, which sometimes actually impeded operations, the trainees were not employees whose work contemplated compensation. To hold otherwise would penalize companies for providing free instruction that benefits prospective workers.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. The judgment should be affirmed because the findings of fact made by two lower courts were supported by ample evidence. The deference to the factual findings of the district court and the circuit court is the sole basis for affirming their conclusion that the trainees were not employees.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Jackson
No. While the judgment should be affirmed, the reasoning should not be based on an interpretation of the FLSA, which was intended to set wage standards, not regulate complex labor relations. The Court should defer to the long-standing customs and collective bargaining agreements within an industry. This arrangement was a good-faith understanding between the parties, and the Court's recent trend of ignoring such customs in cases like Jewell Ridge Corp. has led to excessive litigation. The decision should rest on the validity of the industry custom and the findings of the lower courts, not on a judicial re-definition of the employer-employee relationship.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant 'trainee' or 'learner' exception to the FLSA's broad definition of employment. It articulated the foundational principles of what would later evolve into the 'primary beneficiary test,' shifting the focus from whether a person was merely 'suffered or permitted to work' to an inquiry into who primarily benefits from the arrangement. The holding distinguishes between work performed for an employer's benefit (employment) and training conducted for a student's benefit (education), even when carried out by a potential employer. While it tempered an overly expansive reading of the Act, it left open the possibility for courts to find an employment relationship where a training program is used as a subterfuge to evade minimum wage laws.
