Fred M. Vinson

“ One was to multiply his straight-time hours of work by a specified basic hourly rate, and his overtime hours by one and one-half that rate, and add the products. The other was to multiply the number of jobs done by a specified piecework rate. The employee was entitled to be paid the greater of these two sums. [15] The method of computing the amount due at piece-work rates, which were constant for work done on both straight-time and overtime hours, of course negated any possible inference that the payment of such amount contemplated legal overtime compensation. ”

“ As to the first of these arguments, we note that the contracts in Belo and in this case are substantially identical, except for the amount of the hourly rate and of the fixed guarantee. Under the Belo contract, however, overtime would be paid in addition to the guaranteed wage after 54 1/2 hours had been worked in any given week; [7] under this contract, only after 84 hours. It is said that this 84 hours bears no relation to the usual workweek.
Actually, the employees in this case have no usual workweek. In many weeks they work more than 100 hours; in others less than 30. ”

“ The employees in both cases had a contractual right to the full guarantee however short their workweek, and those in Belo were paid it as well as those here. [11] The second fact we think without significance. The function of the payroll records was merely to show the amounts of compensation payable. These records did not affect respondent's contract obligations, nor suggest a practice at variance with the contract. ”