Lexplug logoLexplug

Wirtz v. Construction Survey Cooperative

District Court, D. Connecticut
235 F. Supp. 621, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7609 (1964)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Members of a genuine cooperative who share in profits, are liable for losses, and exercise equal, unanimous control over management and policy are considered co-owners or partners, not 'employees' within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).


Facts:

  • Szmak founded the Construction Survey Cooperative, an unincorporated association, based on an economic philosophy opposing the traditional employer-employee wage system.
  • The Cooperative provides cost-estimating services to clients in the construction industry.
  • New members join without a monetary investment, signing a document acknowledging their status as co-owners, co-managers, and co-investors.
  • Members are not paid a salary; instead, they receive monthly dividends calculated by a formula based on group income, group expenditures, and each member's 'labor investment rating.'
  • All members are contractually responsible for the Cooperative's debts and share in any losses in proportion to their respective labor investment ratings.
  • Each member has one vote on all policy, management, and operational decisions, and unanimous consent is required to pass any measure.
  • Members can work or not work as they choose, are not subject to discharge, and can only withdraw from the Cooperative by voluntary resignation.
  • Szmak and another senior member provided leadership, but this was based on their experience and the consent of the other members, not on formal authority or a position of power.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Secretary of Labor filed a lawsuit against the Construction Survey Cooperative and its manager, Szmak, in the United States District Court.
  • The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation and failing to keep required records.
  • The defendants admitted to the factual allegations regarding non-payment of overtime and record-keeping but contended that the Act did not apply to them because their members were not 'employees'.
  • The case proceeded to a bench trial before the district court to determine the single issue of employee status.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Are members of a cooperative, who share in profits and losses, possess equal voting rights in management, and are not subject to discharge, considered 'employees' under the Fair Labor Standards Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Zampano, District Judge.

No. The members of the Construction Survey Cooperative are not 'employees' under the Fair Labor Standards Act because the economic reality of their relationship is that of a genuine partnership, not employment. The court determined that labels are not controlling and instead scrutinized the 'economic realities' of the working relationship. It found that the Cooperative lacked all the typical indicia of an employment situation, as it was a small, closely-knit partnership of technicians working together as a unit. Key factors supporting this conclusion were that members shared in both profits and losses, no member received a salary, each member had an equal and dispositive voice in management through a unanimous consent requirement, and no member could be discharged. The court distinguished the leadership of Szmak and another member as guidance by consent rather than control by authority, ultimately finding that the members did not require the protections of the Act.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the primacy of the 'economic reality' test over formal labels in determining employee status under the FLSA. It provides a clear example of a cooperative structure that successfully falls outside the Act's employer-employee definition by demonstrating genuine shared control, risk, and reward among its members. The case serves as a crucial counterpoint to decisions where cooperative members have been deemed employees, highlighting that the critical factors are the substantive distribution of power and financial risk, not the mere use of cooperative terminology. Future cases involving alternative work arrangements will likely use this decision to analyze whether the structure represents a true partnership or a disguised employment relationship.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Wirtz v. Construction Survey Cooperative (1964) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Wirtz v. Construction Survey Cooperative