§ 780.157. Other transportation incident to farming.
460 words·~2 min read·
/us/cfr/t29/s§ 780.157·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
(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).
Connections4 off-index
4 references not yet in our index
- 349 U.S. 254
- 127 F.2d 934
- 242 F.2d 714
- 145 F.2d 552
Citation graph
cites case law
§ 780.157
Other transportation incident to farming.
Cites 4Cited by 0 across 0 sources