The congressional policy under which employees ``engaged in commerce
or in the production of goods for commerce'' are brought within the
general coverage of the Act's wage and hours provisions is stated in
section 2 of the Act. This section makes it clear that the congressional
power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce is exercised in this
Act in order to remedy certain evils, namely, ``labor conditions
detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standards of living
necessary for health, efficiency, and the general well being of
workers'' which Congress found ``(a) causes commerce and the channels
and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to perpetuate such labor
conditions among the workers of the several States; (b) burdens commerce
and the free flow of goods in commerce; (c) constitutes an unfair method
of competition in commerce; (d) leads to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce and (e)
interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce.''
In carrying out these broad remedial purposes, however, the Congress did
not choose to make the scope of the Act coextensive in all respects with
the limits of its power over commerce or to apply it to all activities
affecting commerce. 7 Congress delimited the area in which
the Act operates by providing for certain exceptions and exemptions, and
by making wage-hour coverage applicable only to employees who are
``engaged in'' either ``commerce'', as defined in the Act, or
``production'' of ``goods'' for such commerce, within the meaning of the
Act's definitions of these terms. The Fair Labor Standards Amendments of
1949 indicate an intention to restrict somewhat the category of
employees within the reach of the Act under the former definition of
``produced'' and to expand to some extent the group covered under the
former definition of ``commerce.'' In his interpretations, the
Administrator will endeavor to give effect to both the broad remedial
purposes of the Act and the limitations on its application, seeking
guidance in his task from the terms of the statute, from authoritative
court decisions, and from the legislative history of the Act, as
amended. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517; Walling v. Jacksonville
Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564; 10 East 40th St. Bldg. Co. v. Callus, 325 U.S.
578; A. H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490; Fleming v. Hawkeye
Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52 (C.A. 8); Armstrong v. Walling, 161 F. 2d
515 (C.A. 1); Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11 (C.A. 1).
8 Footnote references to some of the relevant court
decisions are made for the assistance of readers who may be interested
in such decisions.
Footnote reference to the legislative history of the 1949 amendments
are made at points in this part where it is believed they may be
helpful. References to the Statement of the Managers on the part of the
House, appended to the Conference Report on the amendments (H. Rept. No.
1453, 81st Cong., 1st sess.) are abbreviated: H. Mgrs. St. 1949, p. --.
References to the Statement of a majority of the Senate Conferees, 95
Cong. Rec., October 19, 1949 at 15372-15377 are abbreviated: Sen. St.,
1949 Cong. Rec. References to the Congressional Record are to the 1949
daily issues, the permanent volumes being unavailable at the time this
part was prepared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
