The language of that part of § 7(c) of the Act involved in this case is ambiguous.
In the District Court the defendant contended that the proper meaning is that in the case of an employer engaged in handling, slaughtering, or dressing livestock, the overtime provisions of § 7(a) shall be inapplicable, for periods totalling not more than fourteen workweeks in one calendar year for each individual employee, to the employees throughout any plant in all or a part of which the employer is so engaged; while the plaintiff contended that the proper meaning is that the overtime shall be inapplicable, for periods totalling not more than fourteen workweeks in one calendar year, to the employees in those sections of its plant in which the employer is so engaged — the exemption to be taken at one and the same time for all such sections; but the court held the meaning to be that the overtime shall be inapplicable, for periods totalling not more than fourteen workweeks in one calendar year for each individual employee, to the employees in those sections of its plant in which the employer is so engaged.
To hold that Congress intended the section to have the meaning given it by the *253court below would, in my opinion, defeat the purpose of this special exemption provision. Such a holding would allow an employer to engage in the following practices: (1) An employer operating an establishment engaged in part in work to which the fourteen workweek exemption is applicable and in part in work to which it is not applicable, could multiply the aggregate period of exemption for the former type of work by interchanging the employees in the two departments after the exemptions of the members of one group had been exhausted. (2) The exemption of fourteen workweeks would also be expanded for each position in an exempt department merely by reason of the turnover of labor, whether such turnover were normal or increased by discharges for this purpose. Each new man would bring with him a fourteen workweek exemption in addition to the fourteen workweek exemption of the man who had preceded him in the job. Expansion of the fourteen workweek exemption for each position would thus occur in proportion to the rate of labor turnover. (3) An employer engaged either wholly or in part in one of the “exempt” industries named in the last half of § 7(c) could evade the general purpose of the Act by continuously keeping each “exempt” department undermanned. In periods when the work load was normal, the working of a few men several hours overtime would complete the work. In periods of peak work load, a larger number of men could be worked many hours overtime in order to complete the work.1 By this means the employer would gain for his business a year-round exemption when Congress intended the exemption to apply only during periods of peak load.
There remain two other possible constructions of the section in question.
If Congress intended that the fourteen workweek exemption be available to each employer only once despite the fact that the employer in effect constitutes a group of industries dealing at one and the same time with different products which have different seasonal peaks, then § 7(c) should be construed as having the meaning contended for by the plaintiff. It does not seem probable, however, that this was the intent of Congress. The fourteen workweek exemption would mean very little under this construction to an employer engaged at one and the same time in handling a large number of products, each of whose seasonal peaks occurred at a different time. It has been said that the purpose of the exemption provision is to be fair to an employer who cannot avoid seasonal variations in work load. A purpose more in keeping with the general policy of the Act, it seems to me, is to attempt to avoid, in certain types of businesses, the seasonal hirings and lay-offs which the employer would no doubt be forced to adopt to avoid a wage bill increase during the peak seasons because of the payment of overtime wages. But whatever the reason, it was felt desirable to give a fourteen workweek exemption from the overtime provisions of the Act each year to employers trying to fit a group of employees to work which fluctuated in amount by reason of the seasonal nature of supply of the product involved. This purpose would not be effectuated by the construction contended for by the plaintiff, when different products are being handled at the same time by different groups of employees working for the same employer.
If Congress intended that the fourteen workweek exemption be applied according to the commodity or product, then the section in question should be construed to mean that, in the case of an employer engaged in handling, slaughtering, or dressing livestock, the overtime shall be inapplicable, for periods totalling not more than fourteen workweeks in one calendar year, to the employees in those sections of its plant in which the employer is so engaged — -the exemption to be applied separately to each section dealing with a different kind of livestock. It seems probable that this was Congress’ intent, if it is a fact that seasonal peaks for a single product of the types mentioned in the last half of § 7(c) are likely to total fourteen workweeks in one calendar year. For, if it is *254true that a single product might well use up the full fourteen workweek exemption the construction suggested by the plaintiff would penalize an employer who handles many “exempt” products in different sections of the same plant, rather than operating a number of plants each of which handles a single “exempt” product. I do not believe that Congress could have intended to make such a distinction.
The term “place of employment where he is so engaged” may have been intended to have any of several meanings, depending on the result desired by Congress: (1) In the present case, the entire Swift & Co. plant at the Union Stockyards, Chicago, Illinois, could be included in the term. It was apparently the contention of the defendant in the District Court that this was the proper interpretation. This meaning was rejected by the Court, which said that the term “place of employment” as used in § 7(c) means only those portions of the plant devoted by the employer to the handling, slaughtering, or dressing of livestock. (2) All sections of the Chicago plant engaged in the handling, slaughtering, or dressing of livestock of all kinds could be included in the term. The position of the plaintiff is grounded on the implied assertion that this is the meaning of the term. (3) Each separate section of the Chicago plant which is engaged in the handling, slaughtering, or dressing of a different kind of livestock could be meant by the term. I believe that this is the meaning Congress intended the term to have as used in § 7(c).
I conclude that a reasonable construction of § 7(c) requires us to hold that in the case of an employer engaged in handling, slaughtering, or dressing livestock, the overtime shall be inapplicable, for periods totalling not more than fourteen workweeks in one calendar year, to the employees in those sections of its plant in which the employer is so engaged — the exemption to be applied separately to each section dealing with a different kind of livestock. This conclusion follows from the belief that Congress did not intend to permit the practices described above in the third paragraph, and also felt that it was possible that seasonal peaks for a single “exempt” product might total as high as fourteen workweeks in a year.
It is not necessary to assume that the periods of peak load aggregate only fourteen workweeks or less for this scheme to become possible. If the periods of peak load aggregated more than fourteen workweeks, the men working overtime ■would only have to work more hours of overtime to got the work done. If the periods of peak load aggregate less than fourteen workweeks, this method of evasion becomes even more flagrant.