29 C.F.R. § 776.30

Construction performed on temporarily idle facilities

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Act applies to work on a covered interstate instrumentality or production facility even though performed during periods of temporary non-use or idleness. 52 The courts have held the Act applicable to performance of construction work upon a covered facility even though the use of the facility was temporarily interrupted or discontinued. 53 It is equally clear that the repair or maintenance of a covered facility (including its machinery, tools, dies, and other equipment) though performed during the inactive or dead season, is subject to the Acts. 54

52Walton v. Southern Package Corp., 320 U.S. 540; Slover v. Wathen & Co., 140 F. (2d) 258 (C.A. 4); Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F. (2d) 733; and Russell Co. v. McComb, 187 F. (2d) 524 (C.A. 5).

53Pedersen v. J. F. Fitzgerald Construction Co., ante; Bennett v. V. P. Loftis, ante; Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante; and Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F. (2d) 733.

54Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co., 349 U.S. 254; Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. (2d) 11; Weaver v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 153 F. (2d) 597, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 858; Walling v. Keensburg Steamship Co., 462 F. (2d) 405.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1978–1978 · leading case: Marshall v. Whitehead, 463 F. Supp. 1329 (M.D. Fla. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marshall v. Whitehead, 463 F. Supp. 1329 (M.D. Fla. 1978). “” 29 C.F.R. Section 776.30(f). For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the Court concludes that no liability for coverage exists as to the employees engaged on these two projects.”

— 29 C.F.R. § 776.30(f) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.