§780.2. Exemptions from Act's requirements. — Inbound Citations

(a) The words “employed on the same farm” are accorded their natural meaning with the usual caution, however, that as in the case of all other exemptions, the exemptive language is to be construed narrowly. (See § 780.2.)

(a) Like other exemptions provided by the Act, the section 13(b)(12) exemption is narrowly construed (Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 334 U.S. 490; Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11; Calaf v. Gonzalez, 127 F. 2d 934; Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52; Fleming v. Swift & Co., 41 F. Supp. 825; Miller Hatcheries v. Boyer, 131 F. 2d 283; Walling v. Friend, 156 F. 2d 429; see also § 780.2 of subpart A of this part 780). An employer who claims the exemption has the burden of showing that it applies. (See § 780.2) The section 13(b)(12) exemption for employment in agriculture is intended to cover all agriculture, including “extraordinary methods” of agriculture as well as the more conventional ones and large operators as well as small ones. Nevertheless, it was meant to apply only to agriculture. It does not extend to processes that are more akin to manufacturing than to agriculture. Practices performed off the farm by nonfarmers are not within the exemption, except for the irrigation activities specifically described in section 13(b)(12). Practices performed by a farmer do not come within the exemption for agriculture if they are neither a part of farming nor performed by him as an incident to or in conjunction with his own farming operations. These principles have been well established by the courts in such cases as Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473; Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254; Farmers Reservoir Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755; Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, 322 U.S. 607; Calaf v. Gonzalez, 127 F. 2d 934; Chapman v. Durkin, 214 F. 2d 363, certiorari denied, 348 U.S. 897; McComb v. Puerto Rico Tobacco Marketing Co-op. Ass'n. 80 F. Supp. 953, 181 F. 2d 697.

The exemption applies to “any employee engaged in” ginning of cotton. This means that the exemption may apply to an employee so engaged, no matter by whom he is employed. Employees of the gin operator, of an independent contractor, or of a farmer may come within the exemption in any workweek when all other conditions of the exemption are met. To come within the exemption, however, an employee's work must be an integral part of ginning of cotton, as previously described. The courts have uniformly held that exemptions in the Act must be construed strictly to carry out the purpose of the Act. (See § 780.2, in subpart A of this part.) No operation in which an employee engages in a place of employment where cotton is ginned is exempt unless it comes within the meaning of the term “ginning.”