Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2d 1346
24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 264, 87 Lab.Cas. P 33,841
* No request for a poll of the court having been made, it is ADJUDGED and
ORDERED that rehearing en banc shall be, and the same hereby is, denied.
II
2
We have considered the petition for rehearing and are of opinion it is without
merit for the reasons assigned just below.
The Secretary of Labor has petitioned the court for rehearing solely with respect
to that portion of the panel's opinion that remands the case to the district court
for a determination of whether Emersons Ltd. is entitled to the complete
defense to liability provided by 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29
U.S.C. 259. The Secretary maintains that Emersons cannot be entitled to a
10 defense because it does not claim reliance on any administrative
pronouncement that either implicitly or explicitly suggests that Emersons' tip
back plan was legal during the relevant time period and that, in any event, it
cannot satisfy the objective good faith reliance standard of 10 because it had
knowledge of the 1974 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act, a cursory
examination of which would have shown that the tip back plan was no longer
legal. Consequently, the Secretary takes exception to that part of the court's
opinion which states: "Taken at face value, the evidence introduced at trial by
Emersons . . . on the Portal-to-Portal Act defense may satisfy the objective
good faith reliance test . . . ." 593 F.2d at 570.
4
The Secretary glosses over the fact that Emersons does contend that it relied on
the Wage and Hour Administrator's opinion letter of July 3, 1967 as support for
the legality of its tip back plan. Such an opinion is the type of administrative
pronouncement upon which good faith reliance can be placed under 10.