C.F.R.
»
Title 29
» CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY OR INTERPRETATION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO REGULATIONS › PART 780—EXEMPTIONS APPLICABLE TO AGRICULTURE, PROCESSING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, AND RELATED SUBJECTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT › Subpart B—General Scope of Agriculture
Trees grown in forests and the lumber derived therefrom are not “agricultural or horticultural commodities.” Christmas trees, whether wild or planted, are also not so considered. It follows that employment in the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of such trees or timber products is not sufficient to bring an employee within section 3(f) unless the operation is performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with his or its farming operations. On the latter point, see §§ 780.160 through 780.164 which discuss the question of when forestry or lumbering operations are incident to or in conjunction with farming operations so as to constitute “agriculture.” For a discussion of the exemption in section 13(a)(13) of the Act for certain forestry and logging operations in which not more than eight employees are employed, see part 788 of this chapter.
[74 FR 26014, May 29, 2009]
Notes of Decisions
Chao v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n, 280 F. Supp. 2d 500 (W.D.N.C. 2003).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 780.115 states: *508 [t]rees grown in forests and the lumber derived therefrom are not ‘agricultural or horticultural commodities.”
Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987).
“29 C.F.R. 780.115. In the Department’s view, “agriculture” is limited to work performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with farming operations.”
Ochoa v. Weisensee Ranch, Inc., 763 P.2d 173 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “" 29 CFR § 780.115 (1987). That definition excludes Christmas tree cultivation, unless it is performed "as an incident to or in conjunction with a farming operation.”
Bresgal v. Brock, 637 F. Supp. 271 (D. Or. 1985).
“That rule is presently found in 29 C.F.R. 780.115 (1984) and states that “Trees grown in forests and the lumber derived therefrom are not ‘agricultural or horticultural commodities.”
Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1988).
“29 C.F.R. 780.115. In the Department's view, "agriculture" is limited to work performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with farming operations.”
Bresgal v. Brock, 833 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1987).
“29 C.F.R. 780.115. In the Department’s view, “agriculture” is limited to work performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with farming operations.”
Bresgal v. Brock, 833 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1987).
“29 C.F.R. 780.115. In the Department's view, "agriculture" is limited to work performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with farming operations.”
Camargo v. Trammell Crow Interest Co., 318 F. Supp. 2d 443 (E.D. Tex. 2004).
“2003); 29 C.F.R. § 780.115 . In determining whether activities fit within the exemption for secondary agriculture, the question is “whether the .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.