Southern Pac. Co. v. Joint Council Dining Car Employees

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court enforcing an award of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, hereinafter called the Board. The judgment gave damages for the admitted cost of meals furnished by appellant, hereinafter called Railway, to its dining car waiters, hereinafter called Waiters, holding that such meals are not a part of their wages within Section 3(m), of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 203 (m), hereafter called the Act.

Its holding is against the Railway’s contention there and here made that, in determining whether the Railway had paid the Waiters the 36^ per hour minimum required by a wage order of the Administrator of that Act, 1 the admitted cost of the meals is to be added to the lesser cash wage paid of 32j/£0. A later wage order made the minimum 40$ per hour. The parties agree that if the admitted cost of the meals be included in the wages, both wage orders will be complied with and the judgment must be reversed.

Section 3(m) provides “‘Wage’ paid to any employee includes the reasonable cost, as determined by the Administrator, to the employer of furnishing such employee with board, lodging, or other…

(dissenting).

The parties are agreed that the furnishing of meals to the waiters is a matter of contract. The terms of the contract are in dispute. The waiters contend that under the terms thereof free meals were to be furnished them while on itinerant duty as a part of the working conditions. The Board, in making the award, adopted appellee’s version of the contract. The interpretation of collective agreements is a matter peculiarly within the province of the Board. 1 The trial Court’s finding No. 4 reads: “4. Continuously since the year 1936 there has been in effect between petitioner and .respondent an agreement concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions of said craft or class of. dining car waiters, whereby and whereunder as one of said working conditions meals were to -be supplied in the dining cars of respondent to the members of said craft or class, without cost or charge to them, while on itinerant duty in said cars in the course of their employment, and primarily for the benefit and convenience of respondent.”

This finding supports the judgment and I am unable to say it is clearly erroneous.

1 am' impressed, as I think the Board and the District Court must…