Aeromotive Metal Products, Inc. appeals from a judgment in favor of the Secretary of Labor in an action brought under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The judgment was on behalf of certain employees of appellant and is for unpaid wages and overtime compensation. The question is-whether a fifteen minute mid-morning rest period must be counted as hours of employment and paid for as such.

The rest period involved was originally instituted at the request of the employees at appellant’s Seattle, Washington plant in 1952. The year here involved is 1958-59. At the time that the employees involved were hired, they were given no choice as to whether to take the fifteen-minute uncompensated mid-morning rest period. It was a company rule that no productive work would be done during this period and that no employee would receive pay for this time. The plant was located in the industrial part of Seattle and the nearest commer•cial area was not within a fifteen-minute walking distance. Occasionally, employees would do personal errands, but this was not easy to do, and their homes were not accessible to them within the •fifteen-minute period. The majority of •the employees spent the fifteen-minute period in the immediate vicinity of the plant, smoking, having refreshments, ■etc. The Court found that the employees were free to spend the fifteen-minute ■period in such activities as they might ■desire, provided they returned promptly .at the end of the period. It was also found:

Among its conclusions of law is the following :

Essentially, it is appellant’s position that the Court’s conclusion that the rest period was predominantly for the benefit of the employer, is not supported by the finding quoted above. It relies upon Mitchell v. Greinetz, 10 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 621 , 61 A.L.R.2d 956 and Mitchell v. Turner, 5 Cir., 1960, 286 F.2d 104 . Its position is that a Court cannot determine that such a rest period is primarily for the benefit of the employer in a case in which, as here, production did not increase after the initiation of a rest period.

We do not think that either case cited stands for the proposition that appellant asserts. On the contrary, it seems to us clear that in each case the Court felt that the trial court should consider all of the facts in determining whether the rest period was predominantly for the benefit of the employer. The record here shows that the Court did consider all of the facts, and we think its determination, whether it should be considered a conclusion of law or a finding of ultimate fact, is fully supported by the record.

Affirmed.