No. 11592. June 26, 1940. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa; Charles A. Dewey, Judge. Action by Philip B. Fleming, as administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor, against the Hawkeye Pearl Button Company and others to enjoin alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, §§ 1-19, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201- 219. From an order granting defendants' motions to dismiss the action, plaintiff appeals. Reversed

(a) This Article shall be known and may be cited as the "Wage and Hour Act." (b) The public policy of this State is declared as follows: The wage levels of employees, hours of labor, payment of earned wages, and the well-being of minors are subjects of concern requiring legislation to promote the general welfare of the people of the State without jeopardizing the competitive position of North Carolina business and industry. The General Assembly declares that the general welfare of the State requires

The meaning of the term "livestock" as used in section 3(f) is confined to the ordinary use of the word and includes only domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on farms. That Congress did not use this term in its generic sense is supported by the specific enumeration of activities, such as the raising of fur-bearing animals, which would be included in the generic meaning of the word. The term includes the following animals, among others: Cattle (both dairy and beef cattle), sheep, swine, horses

When an employee is engaged in direct farming operations included in the primary definition of "agriculture," the purpose of the employer in performing the operations is immaterial. For example, where an employer owns a factory and a farm and operates the farm only for experimental purposes in connection with the factory, those employees who devote all their time during a particular workweek to the direct farming operations, such as the growing and harvesting of agricultural commodities, are considered

(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

(a) The statement of the Managers on the Part of the House in the conference report on the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961 (H. Rept. No. 327, 87th Cong., first session, p. 16) refers to the fact that the changes made in sections 13(a)(5) and 13(b)(4) originated in the Senate amendment to the House bill and were not in the bill as passed by the House. In describing the Senate provision which was retained in the final legislation, the Managers stated that it "changes the exemption in the act

Unlike the specifically enumerated operations, the phrase "farming in all its branches" does not clearly indicate its scope. In determining whether an operation constitutes "farming in all its branches," it may be necessary to consider various circumstances such as the nature and purpose of the operations of the employer, the character of the place where the employee performs his duties, the general types of activities there conducted, and the purpose and function of such activities with respect

The language "farming in all its branches" includes all activities, whether listed in the definition or not, which constitute farming or a branch thereof under the facts and circumstances. 29 C.F.R. §780.107

As indicated by the legislative history, the purpose of the section 13(a)(5) exemption is to exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Act employment in those activities in the fishing industry that are controlled or materially affected by natural factors or elements, such as the vicissitudes of the weather, the changeable conditions of the water, the run of the catch, and the perishability of the products obtained (83 Cong. Rec. 7408, 7443; S. Rep. No. 145, p. 33 on H.R. 3935,

The various activities enumerated in section 13(a)(5)-the catching, taking, propagating, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of aquatic forms of animal or vegetable life as well as "the going to and returning from work" are materially controlled and affected by the natural elements. Similarly, the activities of "first processing, canning, or packing of such marine products at sea as an incident to, or in conjunction with, such fishing operations" are subject to the natural factors mentioned above

It is also necessary to the application of the exemptions that the operation of which the employee's work is a part be performed on the marine products named in the Act. Thus the operations described in section 13(a)(5) must be performed with respect to "any kind of fish, shellfish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life." The operations enumerated in section 13(b)(4) must be performed with respect to "any kind of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic forms