§784.105. The 1961 amendments. — Inbound Citations

It is clear from the language of section 13(a)(5) and section 13(b)(4) of the Act, and from their legislative history as discussed in §§ 784.102-784.105, that the exemptions which they provide are applicable only to those employees who are “employed in” the named operations. Under the Act as amended in 1961 and in accordance with the evident legislative intent (see § 784.105), an employee will be considered to be “employed in” an operation named in section 13(a)(5) or 13(b)(4) where his work is an essential and integrated step in performing such named operation (see Mitchell v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co., 350 U.S. 891, approving Tobin v. Blue Channel Corp., 198 F. 2d 245; Mitchell v. Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210), or where the employee is engaged in activities which are functionally so related to a named operation under the particular facts and circumstances that they are necessary to the conduct of such operation and his employment is, as a practical matter, necessarily and directly a part of carrying on the operation for which exemption was intended (Mitchell v. Trade Winds, Inc., 289 F. 2d 278; see also Waller v. Humphreys, 133 F. 2d 193 and McComb v. Consolidated Fisheries Co., 174 F. 2d 74). Under these principles, generally an employee performing functions without which the named operations could not go on is, as a practical matter, “employed in” such operations. It is also possible for an employee to come within the exemption provided by section 13(a)(5) or section 13(b)(4) even though he does not directly participate in the physical acts which are performed on the enumerated marine products in carrying on the operations which are named in that section of the Act. However, it is not enough to establish the applicability of such an exemption that an employee is hired by an employer who is engaged in one or more of the named operations or that the employee is employed by an establishment or in an industry in which operations enumerated in section 13(a)(5) or section 13(b)(4) are performed. The relationship between what he does and the performance of the named operations must be examined to determine whether an application of the above-stated principles to all the facts and circumstances will justify the conclusion that he is “employed in” such operations within the intendment of the exemption provision.

The expression “offshore activities” is used to describe the category of named operations pertaining to the acquisition from nature of aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life. As originally enacted in 1938, section 13(a)(5) exempted not only employees employed in such “offshore” or “trip” activities but also employees employed in related activities on shore which were similarly affected by the natural factors previously discussed (see § 784.103, and Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52). However, the intent of the 1961 amendments to the Act was to remove from the exemption the so-called onshore activities and “leave the exemption applicable to ‘offshore’ activities connected with the procurement of the aquatic products” (S. Rep. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 33). Despite its comprehensive reach (see §§ 784.105 and 784.106), the exemption, like the similar exemption is the Act for agriculture, is “meant to apply only” to the activities named in the statute (see Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254; Farmers Reservoir Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755).

Section 13(b)(4) provides an exemption from the overtime but not from the minimum wage provisions of the Act for “any employee employed in the canning, processing, marketing, freezing, curing, storing, packing for shipment, or distributing” aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life or any byproducts thereof. Orginally, all these operations were contained in the exemption provided by section 13(a)(5) but, as a result of amendments, first “canning”, in 1949, and then the other operations in 1961, were transferred to section 13(b)(4). (See the discussion in §§ 784.102 to 784.105.) These activities are “shore” activities and in general have to do with the movement of the perishable aquatic products to a nonperishable state or to points of consumption (S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 33).