The Act applies to employees ``engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce'' without regard to whether such
employees, or their employer, are also engaged in other activities which
would not bring them within the coverage of the Act. The Act makes no
distinction as to the percentage, volume, or amount of activities of
either employee or employer which constitute engaging in commerce or in
the production of goods for commerce. Sections 6 and 7 refer to ``each''
and ``any'' employee so engaged, and section 15(a)(1) prohibits the
introduction into the channels of interstate or foreign commerce of
``any'' goods in the production of which ``any'' employee was employed
in violation of section 6 or section 7. Although employees doing work in
connection with mere isolated, sporadic, or occasional shipments in
commerce of insubstantial amounts of goods will not be considered
covered by virtue of that fact alone, the law is settled that every
employee whose engagement in activities in commerce or in the production
of goods for commerce, even though small in amount, is regular and
recurring, is covered by the Act. 12 This does not, however,
necessarily mean that an employee who at some particular time may engage
in work which brings him within the coverage of the Act is, by reason of
that fact, thereafter indefinitely entitled to its benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100; Mabee v. White
Plains Pub. Co., 327 U.S. 178; Schmidt v. Peoples Telephone Union of
Maryville, Missouri, 138 F. 2d 13 (C.A. 8); New Mexico Public Service
Co. v. Engel, 145 F. 2d 636 (C.A. 10); Sun Pub. Co. v. Walling, 140 F.
2d 445 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied 322 U.S. 728; Davis v. Goodman Lumber
Co., 133 F. 2d 52 (C.A. 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
