224 F. Supp. 303 | D. Minnesota | 1963
This matter comes before the Court on a motion by plaintiff for judgment in the amount of $500.00 based upon stipulation of the parties.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover a statutory penalty prescribed by the Hours of Service Act.
Plaintiff contends that if part of the work performed is covered by the act, then all the work is counted to determine .violation. Defendant, on the other hand, claims that if the covered work precedes the noneovered work, then the noncov-ered work is not counted in the determination of violation.
The purpose of the Hours of Service Act is to promote the safety of passengers and employees of the railroads by making mandatory release from duty for a period sufficient to allow adequate rest for those engaged in the movement of trains.
Defendant argues that its employee, S. A. Agre, was not engaged in the movement of trains during his employment as assistant general yardmaster. It claims that after his shift as assistant general yardmaster, S. A. Agre was given the required time off before returning to
These arguments have been presented to the court before and have been rejected.
Defendant cites the case of United States v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.,
The fact that employees of the railroad could work for another employer is not relevant. The act is merely designed to limit the right of the railroad to require that its employees work overtime. There is no attempt to control the activities of the employees with regard to “moonlighting.”
Plaintiff’s motion for judgment is granted.
It is so ordered.
Plaintiff may submit findings of fact, conclusions of law, order for and form of judgment consistent with the foregoing.
Defendant is allowed an exception.
. 45 U.S.C. §§ 61-64.
. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, 244 U.S. 336, 37 S.Ct. 635, 61 L.Ed. 1175.
. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 213 F. 326.
. Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 234 F. 584; Delano v. United States, 7 Cir., 220 F. 635; San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co. v. United States, supra note 3 ; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 211 F. 309; United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co., D.C.N.D.Idaho, 206 F. 838.
. Note 3 supra.
. United States v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., D.C.S.D.Fla., 68 F.Supp. 941.
. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co. v. United States, supra note 3.