e-CFR banner

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

e-CFR data is current as of February 19, 2020

Title 29Subtitle BChapter VSubchapter BPart 780Subpart B → Subject Group


Title 29: Labor
PART 780—EXEMPTIONS APPLICABLE TO AGRICULTURE, PROCESSING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, AND RELATED SUBJECTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
Subpart B—General Scope of Agriculture


Transportation Operations Not Mentioned in Section 3(f)

§780.156   Transportation of farm products from the fields or farm.

Transportation of farm products from the fields where they are grown or from the farm to other places may be within the “secondary” meaning of agriculture, regardless of whether the transportation is included as “delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market”: Provided only, That it is performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with the farming operations of that farmer or that farm. Of course, any transportation operations which are part of, and not subsequent to, the “primary” farming operations are also within section 3(f). These principles have been recognized by the courts in the following cases, among others: Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254; NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242 F. 2d 714; Bowie v. Gonzales, 117 F. 2d 11; Calaf v. Gonzales, 127 F. 8d 934; Vives v. Serralles, 145 F. 2d 552; Holtville Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 398. If not performed by the farmer, transportation beyond the limits of the farm is not within section 3(f), even when performed by a purchaser of the unharvested commodities who has harvested the crop. The scope of section 3(f) includes the harvesting employees but does not extend to the employees transporting the commodities off the farm (Chapman v. Durkin, 214 F. 2d 360, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 897; Fort Mason Fruit Co. v. Durkin, 214 F. 2d 363, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 897).

§780.157   Other transportation incident to farming.

(a) Transportation by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with the farming operations of the farmer or of that farm is within the scope of agriculture even though things other than farm commodities raised by the farmer or on the farm are being transported. As previously indicated, transportation of commodities raised by other farmers or on other farms would not be within section 3(f). The definition of agriculture clearly covers the transportation by the farmer, as an incident to or in conjunction with his farming activities, of farm implements, supplies, and fieldworkers to and from the fields, regardless of whether such transportation involves travel on or off the farm and regardless of the method used. The Supreme Court of the United States so held in Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254. Transportation of fieldworkers to or from the farm by persons other than the farmer does not come within section 3(f). However, under section 13(b)(16) of the Act, discussed in subpart J of this part 780, an overtime pay exemption is provided for transportation, whether or not performed by the farmer, of fruit or vegetable harvest workers to and from the farm, within the same State where the farm is located. In the case of transportation to the farm of materials or supplies, it seems clear that transportation to the farm by the farmer of materials and supplies for use in his farming operations, such as seed, animal or poultry feed, farm machinery or equipment, etc., would be incidental to the farmer's actual farming operations. Thus, truckdrivers employed by a farmer to haul feed to the farm for feeding pigs are engaged in “agriculture.”

(b) With respect to the practice of transporting farm products from farms to a processing establishment by employees of a person who owns both the farms and the establishment, such practice may or may not be incident to or in conjunction with the employer's farming operations depending on all the pertinent facts. For example, the transportation is clearly incidental to milling operations, rather than to farming, where the employees engaged in it are hired by the mill, carried on its payroll, do no agricultural work on the farms, and report for and end their daily duties at the mill where the transportation vehicles are kept (Calaf v. Gonzales, 127 F. 2d 934). On the other hand, a different result is reached where the facts show that the transportation workers are farm employees whose work is closely integrated with harvesting and other direct farming operations (NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242 F. 2d 714; and see Vives v. Serralles, 145 F. 2d 552). The method by which the transportation is accomplished is not material (Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254).

Need assistance?