4 Cited authorities
Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
429 U.S. 298 (1977) Cited 77 timesFinding the Board's conclusion "that these truck drivers are not agricultural laborers is based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute, is consistent with the Board's prior holdings, and is supported by the Secretary of Labor's construction of [section] 3(f)"
Farmers Irrigation Co. v. McComb
337 U.S. 755 (1949) Cited 145 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn Farmers Reservoir, for example, the Supreme Court concluded that "the physical operation, control and maintenance" of "canals, reservoirs, and headgates" for a company that stored water and distributed it to farms through the company's canals were activities "[c]learly... not done on a farm."
N.L.R.B. v. Kelly Brothers Nurseries, Inc.
341 F.2d 433 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 8 timesNo. 206, Docket 29055. Argued December 2, 1964. Decided February 5, 1965. James L. Burke, Elmira, N.Y., for Kelly Brothers Nurseries. Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Michael N. Sohn, Washington, D.C., Atty.), for National Labor Relations Board. Before FRIENDLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BLUMENFELD, District Judge. Sitting by designation. FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge: The National
Section 780.131 - Operations which constitute one a "farmer."
29 C.F.R. § 780.131 Cited 2 timesGenerally, an employer must undertake farming operations of such scope and significance as to constitute a distinct activity, for the purpose of yielding a farm product, in order to be regarded as a "farmer." It does not necessarily follow, however, that any employer is a "farmer" simply because he engages in some actual farming operations of the type specified in section 3(f). Thus, one who merely harvests a crop of agricultural commodities is not a "farmer" although his employees who actually do