§ 780.717. Determining whether there is employment "by" the establishment.
365 words·~2 min read·
/us/cfr/t29/s§ 780.717·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
(a)No single test will determine whether a worker is in fact employed "by" a country elevator establishment. This question must be decided on the basis of the total situation (Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722; U.S. v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704). Clearly, an employee is so employed where he is hired by the elevator, engages in its work, is paid by the elevator and is under its supervision and control.
(b)"Employed by" requires that there be an employer-employee relationship between the worker and the employer engaged in operating the elevator. The fact, however, that the employer carries an employee on the payroll of the country elevator establishment which qualifies for exemption does not automatically extend the exemption to that employee. In order to be exempt an employee must actually be "employed by" the exempt establishment. This means that whether the employee is performing his duties inside or outside the establishment, he must be employed in the work of the exempt establishment itself in activities within the scope of its exempt business in order to meet the requirement of actual employment "by" the establishment (see Walling v. Connecticut Co., 154 F. 2d 552).
(c)In the case of employers who operate multiunit enterprises and conduct business operations in more than one establishment (see Tobin v. Flour Mills, 185 F. 2d 596; Remington v. Shaw (W.D. Mich.) 2 WH Cases 262), there will be employees of the employer who perform central office or central warehousing activities for the enterprise or for more than one establishment, and there may be other employees who spend time in the various establishments of the enterprise performing duties for the enterprise rather than for the particular establishment in which they are working at the time. Such employees are employed by the enterprise and not by any particular establishment of the employer (Mitchell v. Miller Drugs, 255 F. 2d 574; Mitchell v. Kroger Co., 248 F. 2d 935). Accordingly, so long as they perform such functions for the enterprise they would not be exempt as employees employed by a country elevator establishment operated as part of such an enterprise, even while stationed in it or placed on its payroll.
Connections6 off-index
6 references not yet in our index
- 331 U.S. 722
- 331 U.S. 704
- 154 F.2d 552
- 185 F.2d 596
- 255 F.2d 574
- 248 F.2d 935
Citation graph
cites case law
§ 780.717
Determining whether there is employment "by" the establishment.
Cites 6 · showing 5Cited by 0 across 0 sources