| 词条 | Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123 |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123 |ArgueDate=January 13–14 |ArgueYear=1944 |DecideDate=March 27 |DecideYear=1944 |FullName=Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. et al. v. Muscoda Local No. 123 et al. |USVol=321 |USPage=590 |ParallelCitations=64 S. Ct. 698; 88 L. Ed. 949; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1313 |Prior=135 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/135/320/1492580/ 320] (5th Cir. 1943) |Subsequent= |Holding=The miners' travel time constituted "work" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, entitling them to pay for such time. |SCOTUS=1943-1945 |Majority=Murphy |JoinMajority=Black, Douglas, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, Rutledge |Concurrence=Frankfurter |Concurrence2=Jackson |Dissent=Roberts |JoinDissent=Stone |LawsApplied=Fair Labor Standards Act }} Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944),[1] was an important decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to the interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This set a precedent for an expansive construction of the language of the FLSA. FactsThree iron ore companies filed a declarative action to determine whether time spent by their employees traveling underground to their work sites constituted employment for which compensation was due under the FLSA.[2] The district court found that this transit time was work, and the appellate court affirmed its holding as to travel time.[3][4] JudgmentThe Court, in an opinion written by Justice Murphy, held that the miners' travel time constituted "work" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, entitling them to pay for such time.[5] The Court stated that the Fair Labor Standards Act is a “remedial and humanitarian” statute, which “must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.”[6] Congress intended the Act to mandate either regular or overtime compensation for all work activities. Concurring opinionsJustices Jackson and Frankfurter each wrote a short concurrence. Both argued that the determination of the trial court that the miners' travel time was part of their workweek was an issue of fact that should be affirmed unless clear error was present.[7] Dissenting opinionJustice Roberts dissented in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Stone. Viewing the court's interpretation of the FLSA as overly expansive, Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of interpreting what is written in a statute, rather than what the court wishes is in the statute.[8]See also
References1. ^{{ussc|name=Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123|volume=321|page=590|pin=|year=1944}}. 2. ^321 U.S. at 592. 3. ^{{cite court |litigants=Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123 |vol=135 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=320 |pinpoint= |court=5th Cir. |date=1943 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/135/320/1492580/ |accessdate=2017-01-09 |quote=}} 4. ^321 U.S. at 593. 5. ^321 U.S. at 603. 6. ^321 U.S. at 597. 7. ^321 U.S. at 603-606. 8. ^321 U.S. at 606. External links
|case=Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, {{ussc|321|590|1944|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/103958/tennessee-coal-iron-r-co-v-muscoda-local-no-123/ | findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/321/590.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18413039910651418858 | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/590/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep321/usrep321590/usrep321590.pdf | openjurist =https://openjurist.org/321/us/590{{DEFAULTSORT:Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123}} 6 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court|United States labor case law|1944 in United States case law|Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company|United Mine Workers litigation |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。