Section 7(g)(3) of the Act provides the following exception from the provisions of section 7(a):

Regulations issued pursuant to section 7(g) (3) of the Act are published as Part 548 of this chapter. Payments made in conformance with these regulations satisfy the overtime pay requirements of the Act.

Section 7(f) of the Act provides the following exception from the provisions of section 7(a):

Section 7(f) is the only provision of the Act which allows an employer to pay the same total compensation each week to an employee who works overtime and whose hours of work vary from week to week. (See in this connection the discussion in §§ 778.207, 778.321-778.329, and 778.308-778.315.) Unless the pay arrangements in a particular situation meet the requirements of section 7(f) as set forth, all the compensation received by the employee under a guaranteed pay plan is included in his regular rate and no part of such guaranteed pay may be credited toward overtime compensation due under the Act. Section 7(f) is an exemption from the overtime provisions of the Act. No employer will be exempt from the duty of computing overtime compensation for an employee under section 7(a) unless the employee is paid pursuant to a plan which actually meets all the requirements of the exemption. These requirements will be discussed separately in the ensuing sections.

The exception to the requirements of section 7(a) provided by section 7(f) of the Act is designed to provide a means whereby the employer of an employee whose duties necessitate irregular hours of work and whose total wages if computed solely on an hourly rate basis would of necessity vary widely from week to week, may guarantee the payment, week-in, week-out, of at least a fixed amount based on his regular hourly rate. Section 7(f) was proposed and enacted in 1949 with the stated purpose of giving express statutory validity, subject to prescribed limitations, to a judicial “gloss on the Act” by which an exception to the usual rule as to the actual regular rate had been recognized by a closely divided Supreme Court as permissible with respect to employment in such situations under so-called “Belo” contracts. See McComb v. Utica Knitting Co., 164 F. 2d 670, rehearing denied 164 F. 2d 678 (C.A. 2); Walling v. A. H. Belo Co., 316 U.S. 624; Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 331 U.S. 17; 95 Cong. Rec. 11893, 12365, 14938, A2396, A5233, A5476. Such a contract affords to the employee the security of a regular weekly income and benefits the employer by enabling him to anticipate and control in advance at least some part of his labor costs. A guaranteed wage plan also provides a means of limiting overtime computation costs so that wide leeway is provided for working employees overtime without increasing the cost to the employer, which he would otherwise incur under the Act for working employees in excess of the statutory maximum hours standard. Recognizing both the inherent advantages and disadvantages of guaranteed wage plans, when viewed in this light, Congress sought to strike a balance between them which would, on the one hand, provide a feasible method of guaranteeing pay to employees who needed this protection without, on the other hand, nullifying the overtime requirements of the Act. The provisions of section 7(f) set forth the conditions under which, in the view of Congress, this may be done. Plans which do not meet these conditions were not thought to provide sufficient advantage to the employee to justify Congress in relieving employers of the overtime liability section 7(a).

The type of employment agreement permitted under section 7(f) can be made only with (or by his representatives on behalf of) an employee whose “duties * * * necessitate irregular hours of work.” It is clear that no contract made with an employee who works a regularly scheduled workweek or whose schedule involves alternating fixed workweeks will qualify under this subsection. Even if an employee does in fact work a variable workweek, the question must still be asked whether his duties necessitate irregular hours of work. The subsection is not designed to apply in a situation where the hours of work vary from week to week at the discretion of the employer or the employee, nor to a situation where the employee works an irregular number of hours according to a predetermined schedule. The nature of the employee's duties must be such that neither he nor his employer can either control or anticipate with any degree of certainty the number of hours he must work from week to week. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in § 778.406, his duties must necessitate significant variations in weekly hours of work both below and above the statutory weekly limit on nonovertime hours. Some examples of the types of employees whose duties may necessitate irregular hours of work would be outside buyers, on-call servicemen, insurance adjusters, newspaper reporters and photographers, propmen, script girls and others engaged in similar work in the motion picture industry, firefighters, troubleshooters and the like. There are some employees in these groups whose hours of work are conditioned by factors beyond the control of their employer or themselves. However, the mere fact that an employee is engaged in one of the jobs just listed, for example, does not mean that his duties necessitate irregular hours. It is always a question of fact whether the particular employee's duties do or do not necessitate irregular hours. Many employees not listed here may qualify. Although office employees would not ordinarily qualify, some office employees whose duties compel them to work variable hours could also be in this category. For example, the confidential secretary of a top executive whose hours of work are irregular and unpredictable might also be compelled by the nature of her duties to work variable and unpredictable hours. This would not ordinarily be true of a stenographer or file clerk, nor would an employee who only rarely or in emergencies is called upon to work outside a regular schedule qualify for this exemption.

Any employment in which the employee's hours fluctuate only in the overtime range above the maximum workweek prescribed by the statute lacks the irregularity of hours for which the Supreme Court found the so-called “Belo” contracts appropriate and so fails to meet the requirements of section 7(f) which were designed to validate, subject to express statutory limitations, contracts of a like kind in situations of the type considered by the Court (see § 778.404). Nothing in the legislative history of section 7(f) suggests any intent to suspend the normal application of the general overtime provisions of section 7(a) in situations where the weekly hours of an employee fluctuate only when overtime work in excess of the prescribed maximum weekly hours is performed. Section 7(a) was specifically designed to deal with such a situation by making such regular resort to overtime more costly to the employer and thus providing an inducement to spread the work rather than to impose additional overtime work on employees regularly employed for a workweek of the maximum statutory length. The “security of a regular weekly income” which the Supreme Court viewed as an important feature of the “Belo” wage plan militating against a holding that the contracts were invalid under the Act is, of course, already provided to employees who regularly work at least the maximum number of hours permitted without overtime pay under section 7(a). Their situation is not comparable in this respect to employees whose duties cause their weekly hours to fluctuate in such a way that some workweeks are short and others long and they cannot, without some guarantee, know in advance whether in a particular workweek they will be entitled to pay for the regular number of hours of nonovertime work contemplated by section 7(a). It is such employees whose duties necessitate “irregular hours” within the meaning of section 7(f) and whose “security of a regular weekly income” can be assured by a guarantee under that section which will serve to increase their hourly earnings in short workweeks under the statutory maximum hours. It is this benefit to the employee that the Supreme Court viewed, in effect, as a quid pro quo which could serve to balance a relaxation of the statutory requirement, applicable in other cases, that any overtime work should cost the employer 50 percent more per hour. In the enactment of section 7(f), as in the enactment of section 7(b) (1) and (2), the benefits that might inure to employees from a balancing of long workweeks against short workweeks under prescribed safeguards would seem to be the reason most likely to have influenced the legislators to provide express exemptions from the strict application of section 7(a). Consequently, where the fluctuations in an employee's hours of work resulting from his duties involve only overtime hours worked in excess of the statutory maximum hours, the hours are not “irregular” within the purport of section 7(f) and a payment plan lacking this factor does not qualify for the exemption. (See Goldberg v. Winn-Dixie Stores (S.D. Fla.), 15 WH Cases 641; Wirtz v. Midland Finance Co. (N.D. Ga.), 16 WH Cases 141; Trager v. J. E. Plastics Mfg. Co. (S.D.N.Y.), 13 WH Cases 621; McComb v. Utica Knitting Co., 164 F. 2d 670; Foremost Dairies v. Wirtz, 381 F. 2d 653 (C.A. 5).)

Payment must be made “pursuant to a bona fide individual contract or pursuant to an agreement made as a result of collective bargaining by representatives of employees.” It cannot be a onesided affair determinable only by examination of the employer's books. The employee must not only be aware of but must have agreed to the method of compensation in advance of performing the work. Collective bargaining agreements in general are formal agreements which have been reduced to writing, but an individual employment contract may be either oral or written. While there is no requirement in section 7(f) that the agreement or contract be in writing, it is certainly desirable to reduce the agreement to writing, since a contract of this character is rather complicated and proof both of its existence and of its compliance with the various requirements of the section may be difficult if it is not in written form. Furthermore, the contract must be “bona fide.” This implies that both the making of the contract and the settlement of its terms were done in good faith.

(a) To qualify under section 7(f), the contract must specify “a regular rate of pay of not less than the minimum hourly rate provided in subsection (a) or (b) of section 6 (whichever may be applicable).” The word “regular” describing the rate in this provision is not to be treated as surplusage. To understand the nature of this requirement it is important to consider the past history of this type of agreement in the courts. In both of the two cases before it, the Supreme Court found that the relationship between the hourly rate specified in the contract and the amount guaranteed was such that the employee in a substantial portion of the workweeks of the period examined by the court worked sufficient hours to earn in excess of the guaranteed amount and in those workweeks was paid at the specified hourly rate for the first 40 hours and at time and one-half such rate for hours in excess of 40 (Walling v. A. H. Belo Company, 316 U.S. 624, and Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, 331 U.S.17). The fact that section 7(f) requires that a contract, to qualify an employee for exemption under section 7(f), must specify a “regular rate,” indicates that this criterion of these two cases is still important.

(b) The regular rate of pay specified in the contract may not be less than the applicable minimum rate. There is no requirement, however, that the regular rate specified be equal to the regular rate at which the employee was formerly employed before the contract was entered into. The specified regular rate may be any amount (at least the applicable minimum wage) which the parties agree to and which can reasonably be expected to be operative in controlling the employee's compensation.

(c) The rate specified in the contract must also be a “regular” rate which is operative in determining the total amount of the employee's compensation. Suppose, for example, that the compensation of an employee is normally made up in part by regular bonuses, commissions, or the like. In the past he has been employed at an hourly rate of $5 per hour in addition to which he has received a cost-of-living bonus of $7 a week and a 2-percent commission on sales which averaged $70 per week. It is now proposed to employ him under a guaranteed pay contract which specifies a rate of $5 per hour and guarantees $200 per week, but he will continue to receive his cost-of-living bonus and commissions in addition to the guaranteed pay. Bonuses and commissions of this type are, of course, included in the “regular rate” as defined in section 7(e). It is also apparent that the $5 rate specified in the contract is not a “regular rate” under the requirements of section 7(f) since it never controls or determines the total compensation he receives. For this reason, it is not possible to enter into a guaranteed pay agreement of the type permitted under section 7(f) with an employee whose regular weekly earnings are made up in part by the payment of regular bonuses and commissions of this type. This is so because even in weeks in which the employee works sufficient hours to exceed, at his hourly rate, the sum guaranteed, his total compensation is controlled by the bonus and the amount of commissions earned as well as by the hourly rate.

(d) In order to qualify as a “regular rate” under section 7(f) the rate specified in the contract together with the guarantee must be the actual measure of the regular wages which the employee receives. However, the payment of extra compensation, over and above the guaranteed amount, by way of extra premiums for work on holidays, or for extraordinarily excessive work (such as for work in excess of 16 consecutive hours in a day, or for work in excess of 6 consecutive days of work), year-end bonuses and similar payments which are not regularly paid as part of the employee's usual wages, will not invalidate a contract which otherwise qualifies under section 7(f).

The section 7(f) contract must provide for compensation at not less than one and one-half times the specified regular rate for all hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard for the particular workweek. All excessive hours, not merely those covered by the guarantee, must be compensated at one and one-half times (or a higher multiple) of the specified regular rate. A contract which guaranteed a weekly salary of $169, specified a rate of $3.60 per hour, and provided that not less than one and one-half times such rate would be paid only for all hours up to and including 46 2/3 hours would not qualify under this section. The contract must provide for payment at time and one-half (or more) for all hours in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard in any workweek. A contract may provide a specific overtime rate greater than one and one-half times the specified rate, for example, double time. If it does provide a specific overtime rate it must provide that such rate will be paid for all hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard.

(a) The statute provides that the guaranty must be a weekly guaranty. A guaranty of monthly, semimonthly, or biweekly pay (which would allow averaging wages over more than one workweek) does not qualify under this paragraph. Obviously guarantees for periods less than a workweek do not qualify. Whatever sum is guaranteed must be paid in full in all workweeks, however short in which the employee performs any amount of work for the employer. The amount of the guaranty may not be subject to proration or deduction in short weeks.

(b) The contract must provide a guaranty of pay. The amount must be specified. A mere guaranty to provide work for a particular number of hours does not qualify under this section.

(c) The pay guaranteed must be “for not more than 60 hours based on the rate so specified.”

The amount of weekly pay guaranteed may not exceed compensation due at the specified regular rate for the applicable maximum hours standard and at the specified overtime rate for the additional hours, not to exceed a total of 60 hours. Thus, if the maximum hours standard is 40 hours and the specified regular rate is $5 an hour the weekly guaranty cannot be greater than $350. This does not mean that an employee employed pursuant to a guaranteed pay contract under this section may not work more than 60 hours in any week; it means merely that pay in an amount sufficient to compensate for a greater number of hours cannot be covered by the guaranteed pay. If he works in excess of 60 hours he must be paid, for each hour worked in excess of 60, overtime compensation as provided in the contract, in addition to the guaranteed amount.

While the guaranteed pay may not cover more than 60 hours, the contract may guarantee pay for a lesser number of hours. In order for a contract to qualify as a bona fide contract for an employee whose duties necessitate irregular hours of work, the number of hours for which pay is guaranteed must bear a reasonable relation to the number of hours the employee may be expected to work. A guaranty of pay for 60 hours to an employee whose duties necessitate irregular hours of work which can reasonably be expected to range no higher than 50 hours would not qualify as a bona fide contract under this section. The rate specified in such a contract would be wholly fictitious and therefore would not be a “regular rate” as discussed above. When the parties enter into a guaranteed pay contract, therefore, they should determine, as far as possible, the range of hours the employee is likely to work. In deciding the amount of the guaranty they should not choose a guaranty of pay to cover the maximum number of hours which the employee will be likely to work at any time but should rather select a figure low enough so that it may reasonably be expected that the rate will be operative in a significant number of workweeks. In both Walling v. A. H. Belo Co., 316 U.S. 624 and Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 331 U.S. 17 the court found that the employees did actually exceed the number of hours (60 and 84 respectively) for which pay was guaranteed on fairly frequent occasions so that the hourly rate stipulated in the contract in each case was often operative and did actually control the compensation received by the employees. In cases where the guaranteed number of hours has not been exceeded in a significant number of workweeks, this fact will be weighed in the light of all the other facts and circumstances pertinent to the agreement before reaching a conclusion as to its effect on the validity of the pay arrangement. By a periodic review of the actual operation of the contract the employer can determine whether a stipulated contract rate reasonably expected by the parties to be operative in a significant number of workweeks is actually so operative or whether adjustments in the contract are necessary to ensure such an operative rate.

The guaranty of pay must be “based on the rate so specified,” in the contract. If the contract specifies a regular rate of $5 and an overtime rate of $7.50 and guarantees pay for 50 hours and the maximum hours standard is 40 hours, the amount of the guaranty must be $275, if it is to be based on the rates so specified. A guaranty of $290 in such a situation would not, obviously, be based on the rates specified in the contract. Moreover, a contract which provides a variety of different rates for shift differentials, arduous or hazardous work, stand-by time, piece-rate incentive bonuses, commissions or the like in addition to a specified regular rate and a specified overtime rate with a guaranty of pay of, say, $290 from all sources would not qualify under this section, since the guaranty of pay in such a case is not based on the regular and overtime rates specified in the contract.

(a) There is no requirement that a contract, to qualify under section 7(f), must be approved by the Secretary of Labor or the Administrator. The question of whether a contract which purports to qualify an employee for exemption under section 7(f) meets the requirements is a matter for determination by the courts. This determination will in all cases depend not merely on the wording of the contract but upon the actual practice of the parties thereunder. It will turn on the question of whether the duties of the employee in fact necessitate irregular hours, whether the rate specified in the contract is a “regular rate”—that is, whether it was designed to be actually operative in determining the employee's compensation—whether the contract was entered into in good faith, whether the guaranty of pay is in fact based on the regular and overtime rates specified in the contract. While the Administrator does have the authority to issue an advisory opinion as to whether or not a pay arrangement accords with the requirements of section 7(f) he can do so only if he has knowledge of these facts.

(b) As a guide to employers, it may be helpful to describe a fact situation in which the making of a guaranteed salary contract would be appropriate and to set forth the terms of a contract which would comply, in the circumstances described, with the provisions of section 7(f).

(c) The situation described in paragraph (b) of this section is merely an example and nothing herein is intended to imply that contracts which differ from the example will not meet the requirements of section 7(f).

Sections 7(g) (1) and (2) of the Act provide:

The purpose of the provisions set forth in § 778.415 is to provide an exception from the requirement of computing overtime pay at not less than one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard for a particular workweek and to allow, under specified conditions, a simpler method of computing overtime pay for employees paid on the basis of a piece rate, or at a variety of hourly rates or piece rates, or a combination thereof. This provision is not designed to exclude any group of employees from the overtime benefits of the Act. The intent of the provision is merely to simplify the method of computation while insuring the receipt by the affected employees of substantially the same amount of overtime compensation.

The following general requirements must be met in every case before the overtime computation authorized under section 7(g)(1) or (2) may be utilized.

(a) First, in order to insure that the method of computing overtime pay permitted in this section will not in any circumstances be seized upon as a device for avoiding payment of the minimum wage due for each hour, the requirement must be met that employee's average hourly earnings for the workweek (exclusive of overtime pay and of all other pay which is excluded from the regular rate) are not less than the minimum. This requirement insures that the employer cannot pay subminimum nonovertime rates with a view to offsetting part of the compensation earned during the overtime hours against the minimum wage due for the workweek.

(b) Second, in order to insure that the method of computing overtime pay permitted in this section will not be used to circumvent or avoid the payment of proper overtime compensation due on other sums paid to employees, such as bonuses which are part of the regular rate, the section requires that extra overtime compensation must be properly computed and paid on other forms of additional pay required to be included in computing the regular rate.

(a) Under section 7(g)(1), an employee who is paid on the basis of a piece rate for the work performed during nonovertime hours may agree with his employer in advance of the performance of the work that he shall be paid at a rate not less than one and one-half times this piece rate for each piece produced during the overtime hours. No additional overtime pay will be due under the Act provided that the general conditions discussed in § 778.417 are met and:

(1) The piece rate is a bona fide rate;

(2) The overtime hours for which the overtime rate is paid qualify as overtime hours under section 7(e) (5), (6), or (7);

(3) The number of overtime hours for which such overtime piece rate is paid equals or exceeds the number of hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard for the particular workweek; and

(4) The compensation paid for the overtime hours is at least equal to pay at one and one-half times the applicable minimum rate for the total number of hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard.

(b) The piece rate will be regarded as bona fide if it is the rate actually paid for work performed during the nonovertime hours and if it is sufficient to yield at least the minimum wage per hour.

(c) If a pieceworker works at two or more kinds of work for which different straight time piece rates have been established, and if by agreement he is paid at a rate not less than one and one-half whichever straight time piece rate is applicable to the work performed during the overtime hours, such piece rate or rates must meet all the tests set forth in this section and the general tests set forth in § 778.417 in order to satisfy the overtime requirements of the Act under section 7(g) (2).

(a) Under section 7(g)(2) an employee who performs two or more different kinds of work, for which different straight time hourly rates are established, may agree with his employer in advance of the performance of the work that he will be paid during overtime hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the hourly nonovertime rate established for the type of work he is performing during such overtime hours. No additional overtime pay will be due under the act provided that the general requirements set forth in § 778.417 are met and;

(1) The hourly rate upon which the overtime rate is based in a bona fide rate;

(2) The overtime hours for which the overtime rate is paid qualify as overtime hours under section 7(e) (5), (6), or (7); and

(3) The number of overtime hours for which the overtime rate is paid equals or exceeds the number of hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard.

(b) An hourly rate will be regarded as a bona fide rate for a particular kind of work it is equal to or greater than the applicable minimum rate therefor and if it is the rate actually paid for such work when performed during nonovertime hours.

Where an employee works at a combination of hourly and piece rates, the payment of a rate not less than one and one-half times the hourly or piece rate applicable to the type of work being performed during the overtime hours will meet the overtime requirements of the Act if the provisions concerning piece rates (as discussed in § 778.418) and those concerning hourly rates (as discussed in § 778.419) are respectively met.

Where overtime rates are paid pursuant to statute or contract for hours in excess of 8 in a day, or in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard, or in excess of the employees' normal working hours or regular working hours (as under section 7(e)(5) or for work on “special days” (as under section 7(e)(6), or pursuant to an applicable employment agreement for work outside of the hours established in good faith by the agreement as the basic, normal, or regular workday (not exceeding 8 hours) or workweek (not exceeding the applicable maximum hours standard) (under section 7(e) (7), the requirements of section 7(g) (1) and 7(g)(2) will be met if the number of such hours during which overtime rates were paid equals or exceeds the number of hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard for the particular workweek. It is not necessary to determine whether the total amount of compensation paid for such hours equals or exceeds the amount of compensation which would be due at the applicable rates for work performed during the hours after the applicable maximum in any workweek.