*1 agree I that a lawfully cannot state can bar from a semi-public position well-qualified good man of char- solely acter because he religious entertains a belief which might him prompt at some time in the future to violate yet a law which has not been and may never be enacted. Under our Constitution men are punished they for what do or fail to do and not for what think and believe. think, believe, Freedom to and to worship, has too exalted a position country our to be penalized on such Virginia basis. West an illusory Board Education v. Barnette, 624, 643-646.
I would reverse decision of the State Supreme Court. and Mr. Douglas, Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Murphy, Rutledge concur opinion. Justice 40th STREET 10 EAST INC. BUILDING,
CALLUS et al. Argued April 6, No. 820. 1945. Decided June Proskauer, Joseph Mr. M. H. whom Mr. Harold *2 brief, petitioner. Levin was on Goldwater, Mr. Monroe Messrs. Aaron whom Benenson and James L. on brief, Goldwater were respondents. Margolin,
Miss Bessie with whom Solicitor General Fahy, Messrs. Chester T. Douglas Maggs Lane and B. brief,
were on the for the Administrator the Wage and Hour Division, Department United States Labor, as curiae, urging amicus affirmance.
MR. opinion delivered the Justice Frankfurter the Court. Labor regulates wages Fair Standards Act of 1938 only
and hours not “engaged who are commerce” but also “in production goods for commerce.” 7, 1060, Sections 52 Stat. 1062- 6, 63, 206, 29 U. S. C. 207. For the that Act purposes §§ employee “an shall be deemed to have been employee employed was . . . in any process occupation necessary or any (j). 3 thereof, provisions § State.” When these abundantly we made it clear first came here their would involve the courts the empiric enforcement drawing case, from inevitably lines ease Kirschbaum Co. 316 U. Walling, nice lines. v. S. 517. In enacting And this for two reasons. this statute Con- fit, not see it did in gress regulatory measures, did as other g., e. the Interstate Act and the National Labor Commerce power Relations to exhaust its constitutional over And “Unlike the Interstate Act commerce. Commerce legisla- and the National Labor Relations Act and other the courts puts upon tion, the Fair Labor Standards hoc the applying ad independent responsibility 580 the statute variety terms of infinite
general of com industrial situations.” plicated Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, supra, Thus, Congress at 523. withheld from the criteria, compare, courts the aid of constitutional g., e. Wallace, Filburn, Currin v. 306 U. Wickard 1;S. v. Board, 111; U. S. Polish Alliance v. Labor 643, U. S. well benefit of prior judgment, vexing as as the a on ambiguous facts, by an expert agency. administrative Co., g., e. Labor Board Compare, v. 301 U. 49; S. Fruehauf Powell, Gray
The Act produced litiga- has considerable volume of inevitably given judicial tion and has rise to conflicts and courts, only divisions. The lower a lesser measure *3 Court, plagued problems this have been connec- buildings employees occupied by having tion with at least relation eventually some to find their way into interstate commerce.
In Walling, supra, Kirschbaum Co. we were con- cerned employees buildings with maintenance con- cededly devoted manufacture for commerce. In Borella, post, Borden p. 679, the Fair Labor Stand- ards Act invoked on behalf was of maintenance em- of a owned ployees by an interstate producer and occupied for predominantly its offices. Recognizing that question every is “whether case the particular situ- regulated area,” ation is within the we concluded that the buildings of the employees the Kirschbaum case “had and a close immediate tie with the process of pro- duction” carried on as to lessees come within the Borden Act. The case Borden employees who, involved had been under same roof where the physical han- dling of the place, hardly, took could without draw- ing gossamer merely and not nice lines, be deemed not to be “occupation goods” as (j). described differentiate, §3 To incidence of the Fair Labor Standards between main- tenance who worked where the business of milk products goes manufacture on and pursuing the same the Borden enterprise an office separate manufacturing from the building, is turn make too much of .the on accident division the whole industrial The process. case imme- diately presents before us still a third situation differing both from Kirschbaum and Borden.
The facts are these. and manages Petitioner owns a 48- New story building. York office The offices are leased to more than a hundred pursuing great tenants variety enterprises including executive and sales officesof manu- facturing mining concerns, and agencies representing sales such concerns, engineering firms, and construction adver- firms, tising publicity agencies, and law investment and organizations credit and the United Employment States Service. distribution of occupancy relation to the enterprises ultimate of the groups different of tenants was subject conflicting testimony interpretation, but our view does not call for particularization. Indis- putably, exclusively is devoted offices, manufacturing no is carried within on it. The respondents are maintenance employees building, elevator start- ers window operators, cleaners, watchmen and the like. They brought suit under (b) § Pair Labor *4 Standards Act for of payment claims overtime to which they are entitled if their occupations be deemed “necessary production” goods commerce. Obviously not The “engaged commerce.” District Court Supp. the suit. 51 F. 528. The dismissed Circuit Court 2d By 146 F. 438. Appeals reversed. a meticulous calculation, it that found the executive offices of manu- facturing and mining concerns, agencies representing sales concerns, publicity engaged concerns were goods commerce, for interstate and, since the occupied offices these concerns of the rentable 42%
582 area, rented the maintenance em- area and 48% ployees the owners of the goods “necessary production” to the occupations result that reached commerce. between this Conflict bring 324 U. by other led us to the case here. S. circuits 833.1 had to decide when series of cases which we have “occupation necessary an has at least production” for commerce settled Merely occupation because involves a
some matters. an goods, in not indispensable function without, it can be done does not exclude that sense scope of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Con it from the versely, merely indispensable, because being long included chain of causa in the sense of brings complicated about so a result as finished tion which it within the bring scope not of the Fair Labor goods, does Walling Co., Paper Act. See v. Jacksonville Standards Package Corp., v. Southern 564; Walton 320 317 U. S. Wantock, Skid 126; & Co. v. 540; Armour U. S. Co., U. S. In giving ap more & 323 a fair v. Swift must remember that (j), to 3 courts the “neces plication § “necessary production” sary” phrase only colored context not for commerce “is legislation implications but of its terms of this the re national authority.” state and Kirsch lation between Walling, supra, 525. For at as was baum pointed Co., Paper Walling supra, v. Jacksonville at 570, out in enacting “be unmindful we cannot purpose indicated its leave local plainly busi statute We states.” must be protection alert, ness to the by adjudication essentially absorb therefore, not to local 1 Development See, g., v. Dallas Downtown e. F. 2d Co., Johnson 615; Bldg. Corp., 287; 134 F. 2d v. Florida Nat. Tate Cochran 743; Bldg. 135 F. 2d Johnson v. Masonic Bldg. Corp., Corp., Empire F. 2d 817. *5 that Congress activities did not see fit take by over legislation.
Renting space building office a set exclusively aside variety for an of office spontaneously unrestricted work understanding satisfies the common of what is local busi- the employees building ness and makes of such a separation business. Mere local an from process not physical preclude does appli- cation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. But remoteness of a particular occupation from the physical process is a in drawing Running relevant factor the line. an office building entirely independent an enterprise many as too from steps physical process produc- removed goods. tion of Such remoteness is insulated from the Fair Labor per- Standards those considerations system tinent to the federal Congress which led' not local sweep predominantly situations within the confines assign of the Act. To the maintenance men of such an building to the productive because some pro- portion of the in the building may, offices for the time be- ing, be offices manufacturing enterprises indulge analysis an too attenuated for appropriate regard to the regulatory power Congress which States saw fit to them. reserve Dialectic inconsistencies do not weaken validity practical adjustments, between the as State authority, and federal when duty has cast the making upon problem them courts. Our is not logic. exercise scholastic building differences between owned occupants producing commerce, therein of a intended for tenants pro- who goods therein,
duce and the employees of the office large producer, of a interstate thin for too adjudication. ex- practicalities But an office clusively housing purpose devoted all usual miscellany many practical of offices has differences *6 manufacturing building, or the life from a affairs of the are too a And differences building of manufacturer. in the Fair Labor Standards setting the important by the courts. recognized not to be the to indicate the nature of heretofore tried haveWe though not themselves employees who, nexus between in neces- commerce, occupations goods for commerce describ- sary the for the brings work that within ing the imme- that had Act as work “a close scope the production.” process of Kirschbaum with the diate tie Walling, 525. Doubtless more felicitous supra, at but the chosen, attempt could achieve a adjectives be judgment that could avoid an exercise form of words occupation is more the nature of local that a particular merely to content with formulas not, than is be business illusory certainty. legislation drew in which the we On the terms duty lines. And when escape drawing the lines cannot they appear arbitrary be are bound to when have to drawn solely bordering drawing To judged speak cases. adjudication express figuratively the task of lines to a problem mind considerations relevant keeping duty coming on the side down considera- having weight. Lines not worse controlling tions they if are drawn on rational being narrow considera- appropriate subject a tions. It is distinction matter form occupations hold that where of a distinctive enterprise of running such as the an office enterprise, properly to be building, treated as distinct from alone, a commercial necessary parts which regard regulations, Congress to local with due dealt with Of argument in the Fair Labor Standards Act. course an on the other That is can be made side. what is meant by degree, question as is the question before us. But figurative line drawing the must basis be some- thing practically relevant problem hand. We believe that true of line drawn in this case.
Judgment reversed.
Me. Chief Justice Stone. expressed I my views dissent in Borden Co. v. Borella, post, p. would, accepted, control the de- cision this case. As those views have rejected by been Court, I join opinion Court’s in this case. *7 Murphy, Me. Justice dissenting.
A proper understanding of the nature of the activities on in petitioner’s 48-story carried in building New City York leads to the inevitable conclusion that re the maintenance spondent employees, like in Kirsch Walling, 517, Co. v. S. baum U. and in Borden v.Co. Borella, post, p. 679, are in occupations “necessary the of for production goods commerce” and hence are entitled to the benefits of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. of
(1) Approximately the rentable area of the 26% occupied the executive of manu- offices facturing mining and concerns which are en- concededly in the of for gaged production commerce. Cor- policies are formed and from porate directed these offices. purchase of them physi- Most raw materials for use the .manufacturing. processes They keep of cal constant factories, supervising close contact the of and all manufacturing of activities. Some these offices the draft designs specifications produced and in the articles the Business and factories. sales located departments work in do connection with tfye these offices distribution office even products. parts these One handles for the the company, doing manufactured repair machines shipping parts packing on the them to work customers. out-of-state indistinguishable respect
The this from the case Here, case, as in the Borden Borden case. facts offices employees working these officers and industry. modern productive pattern of the coordinated of manufac- physical processes fact none The that is immaterial. Pro- turing same occurs control, planning, central requires supervision, duction materials, designing products, raw sales purchase manual physical, the like well as the as promotion offices, manufacturing. These central various processes for the integrated of an effort then, “part Wantock, & Armour goods,” in the same maintenance stand And since the did the productive process as relation to case, the Kirschbaum it follows that occupations “necessary to commerce.” pro- it clear that the case also made Kirschbaum application make “expressly depend- its
visions activities.” 316 upon employees’ character ent Hence immaterial the owner of U. S. at 524. it is maintenance employs respondent which *8 in employees engaged pro- not shown have been is of goods duction commerce. As Kirschbaum is case, enough employees necessary it production goods by occupying of' tenants they in which work.
(2) of the rentable area of the Approximately 6.5% engaged writing in occupied by concerns preparing photographic printed mat- mimeographed, shipped ter which is interstate commerce. One com- between pany produces 15,000 20,000 pages of mimeo- per graphed week, which is materials sent outside 90% magazines the state. Another tenant produces having produce quan- national circulations. Other large concerns of pamphlets, photographs, magazines tities and adver- tising shipment. matter for interstate telegraphic messages “goods” Since within the mean- ing Lenroot, Western Union Co. v. it 502-503, magazines, would seem clear that these
pamphlets, etc. in petitioner’s which are prepared “goods.” likewise And term since the “produced” “every operation kind incidental includes preparatory putting goods into the stream of com- merce,” ibid., 503, writing and preparation of these “production goods” materials constitutes for interstate again commerce. Here the respondent maintenance em- ployees production are related to way the same as were employees in the Kirschbaum case, thus making it clear they that are covered the Act from this standpoint.
It is unnecessary to describe the activities the other although tenants, it is conceded that about 58% total occupied by rentable area is concerns not goods for commerce. It is sufficient that approximately of the rentable area is devoted 32.5% production. The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Department Division has Labor stated that he will no take enforcement action respect “with to mainte- nance buildings which less than 20 per- of the space occupied by cent firms or there elsewhere for commerce.” Wage Release, and Hour Division 19, 1943, November (rev.). P. occupancy R.-19 Whether firms by such 20% minimum is a reasonable is’not in issue here. Clearly a so occupancy is substantial as to any remove doubt 32.5% large the maintenance devote time their to activities to the production of for commerce. Hence are covered the Act. point starting cases this nature is not to de- whether the cide activities carried the officebuilding on *9 satisfy some “common question nebulous understand- of what is local ing business.” The crucial problem, rather, to determine whether such activities constitute it clear process. Once integral part productive process activities
that the character commerce interstate for interstate obvious; and it follows that becomes of the activities partake activities their necessary to those occupations analysis scho- attenuated nor flavor. Neither interstate and co- scope to understand logic lastic is necessary and the productive pattern modern ordination manage and direct the those who integral part played by processes of To the Act physical production. apply elementary beyond facts is not light of economic Congress. judges or the intention of ability beyond “to local Congress intended leave business to plainly Walling v. Jacksonville states,” protection Co., it Paper when enacted this statute. 564, 570, is no indication that it intended to divide But there producing goods for interstate commerce into segments, applying and local statute only interstate former. And when said that to the commerce goods for “necessary production” to the were just that, it meant included within be without were those who only physi limitation manufacturing production. aspects cal Under such recognize duty reality it is our economic circumstances interpreting applying people. the mandate of the Justice Reed and Mr. Jus- Mr. Mr. Justice Black, Rutledge join in this dissent. tice