and disallowed recovery. Here is little showing of any great amount of time spent. The average pre-shift time spent was testified to as 6 to 10 minutes per day. This figure was further reduced during cross-examination. The post-shift time comprised 6.16 minutes at the outside and this was only in one case. Therefore the time spent seems to have been insubstantial. The cases of Seagram, supra and McComb v. C. A. Swanson & Sons, 77 F.Supp. 716 (D.Neb.1948) support the defendant's contentions. In McComb (which had many facts similar to the instant case) the de minimis rule was held applicable, and Seagram held from 10 to 20 minutes per day to be de minimis.
It is the Court's opinion that an outer limitation on the number of minutes is not of itself the proper application of the de minimis rule. It is a doctrine which must be applied with common sense to the facts before the Court. An artificial time limit will not suffice. Here, in light of the uncertainty of how often the tasks were performed, or how long a period was required for their performance, and in the face of the punch card ceiling time, I would find that if the plaintiffs indulged in any compensable activity at all (perhaps getting tools or other equipment from foreman) then such time was merely de minimis and not recoverable.
A trend of decisions indicates that each case must be determined on its own facts. D.A. & S. Oil Well Servicing, Inc. v. Mitchell, 262 F.2d 552 (10th Cir. 1958). The entire picture must be considered along with the 'industrial realities' of the situation. See Mitchell v. Stewart Brothers Construction Co., 184 F.Supp. 886 (D.Neb.1960) and Laudenslager v. Globe-Union & Co., 180 F.Supp. 810 (E.D.Pa.1958), affirmed 274 F.2d 814 (3rd Cir. 1960). The latter case involved lead storage battery workers as did Steiner and yet applied a rule of reason to reach a practical solution.
I hereby find in favor of the defendant on the grounds that plaintiff's have failed to establish the compensable nature of the clothes changing and washing time and have also failed to establish other than de minimis time spent in any other activity.
The form of this Opinion will be held to encompass findings of fact and conclusions of law as per F.R.Civ.P. Rule 52, 28 U.S.C.
Let an appropriate order be submitted.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.