Home
gpo.gov
govinfo.gov

e-CFR Navigation Aids

Browse

Simple Search

Advanced Search

 — Boolean

 — Proximity

 

Search History

Search Tips

Corrections

Latest Updates

User Info

FAQs

Agency List

Incorporation By Reference

eCFR logo

Related Resources

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

We invite you to try out our new beta eCFR site at https://ecfr.federalregister.gov. We???ve made big changes to make the eCFR easier to use. Be sure to leave feedback using the Help button on the bottom right of each page!

e-CFR data is current as of August 4, 2020

Title 29Subtitle BChapter VSubchapter BPart 779Subpart D → §779.316


Title 29: Labor
PART 779—THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS APPLIED TO RETAILERS OF GOODS OR SERVICES
Subpart D—Exemptions for Certain Retail or Service Establishments


§779.316   Establishments outside “retail concept” not within statutory definition; lack first requirement.

The term “retail” is alien to some businesses or operations. For example, transactions of an insurance company are not ordinarily thought of as retail transactions. The same is true of an electric power company selling electrical energy to private consumers. As to establishments of such businesses, therefore, a concept of retail selling or servicing does not exist. That it was the intent of Congress to exclude such businesses from the term “retail or service establishment” is clearly demonstrated by the legislative history of the 1949 amendments and by the judicial construction given said term both before and after the 1949 amendments. It also should be noted from the judicial pronouncements that a “retail concept” cannot be artificially created in an industry in which there is no traditional concept of retail selling or servicing. (95 Cong. Rec. pp. 1115, 1116, 12502, 12506, 21510, 14877, and 14889; Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290; Phillips Co. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490; Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517; Durkin v. Joyce Agency, Inc., 110 F. Supp. 918 (N.D. Ill.) affirmed sub nom Mitchell v. Joyce Agency, Inc., 348 U.S. 945; Goldberg v. Roberts 291 F. 2d 532 (CA-9); Wirtz v. Idaho Sheet Metal Works, 335 F. 2d 952 (CA-9), affirmed in 383 U.S. 190; Telephone Answering Service v. Goldberg, 290 F. 2d 529 (CA-1).) It is plain, therefore, that the term “retail or service establishment” as used in the Act does not encompass establishments in industries lacking a “retail concept”. Such establishments not having been traditionally regarded as retail or service establishments cannot under any circumstances qualify as a “retail or service establishment” within the statutory definition of the Act, since they fail to meet the first requirement of the statutory definition. Industry usage of the term “retail” is not in itself controlling in determining when business transactions are retail sales under the Act. Judicial authority is quite clear that there are certain goods and services which can never be sold at retail. (Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz, 383 U.S. 190, 202, rehearing denied 383 U.S. 963; Wirtz v. Steepleton General Tire Company, Inc., 383 U.S. 190, 202, rehearing denied 383 U.S. 963.)

Need assistance?