29 C.F.R. § 780.136

Employment in practices on a farm

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Employees engaged in building terraces or threshing wheat and other grain, employees engaged in the erection of silos and granaries, employees engaged in digging wells or building dams for farm ponds, employees engaged in inspecting and culling flocks of poultry, and pilots and flagmen engaged in the aerial dusting and spraying of crops are examples of the types of employees of independent contractors who may be considered employed in practices performed “on a farm.” Whether such employees are engaged in “agriculture” depends, of course, on whether the practices are performed as an incident to or in conjunction with the farming operations on the particular farm, as discussed in §§ 780.141 through 780.147; that is, whether they are carried on as a part of the agricultural function or as a separately organized productive activity (§§ 780.104 through 780.144). Even though an employee may work on several farms during a workweek, he is regarded as employed “on a farm” for the entire workweek if his work on each farm pertains solely to farming operations on that farm. The fact that a minor and incidental part of the work of such an employee occurs off the farm will not affect this conclusion. Thus, an employee may spend a small amount of time within the workweek in transporting necessary equipment for work to be done on farms. Field employees of a canner or processor of farm products who work on farms during the planting and growing season where they supervise the planting operations and consult with the grower on problems of cultivation are employed in practices performed “on a farm” so long as such work is done entirely on farms save for an incidental amount of reporting to their employer's plant. Other employees of the above employers employed away from the farm would not come within section 3(f). For example, airport employees such as mechanics, loaders, and office workers employed by a crop dusting firm would not be agriculture employees (Wirtz v. Boyls dba Boyls Dusting and Spraying Service 230 F. Supp. 246, aff'd per curiam 352 F. 2d 63; Tobin v. Wenatchee Air Service, 10 WH Cases 680, 21 CCH Lab Cas. Paragraph 67,019 (E.D. Wash.)).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case: Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636 (7th Cir. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636 (7th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “Instead, it relies exclu- sively on 29 C.F.R. § 780.136 , which says that “[e]mployees engaged in the erection of silos and granaries” are “examples of the types of employees of independent contractors who may be considered employed in practices performed ‘on a farm.”

Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Tiller Helicopter Servs., Inc. & William J. Tiller, Sr., 8 F.3d 1018 (5th Cir. 1993). “The fact that a minor and incidental part of the work of such an employee occurs off the farm will not affect this conclusion.”

Jose Ramirez v. Statewide Harvesting & Hauling, LLC, 997 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 2021). “29 C.F.R. §§ 780.136 , 780.141; accord Sariol v.”

Jimenez v. Duran, 287 F. Supp. 2d 979 (N.D. Iowa 2003). “29 C.F.R. § 780.136 . The court finds that there is no dispute that all of the work performed by employees of the Duran Defendants, which consisted of vaccinating and tending to poultry, was performed “on a farm,” and indeed, was comparable to “inspecting and culling flocks of…”

Luna Vanegas, Jose v. Signet Builders, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2021). “” 29 C.F.R. § 780.136 . The regulation makes it clear that whether Luna Vanegas performed secondary agriculture by building livestock confinement structures turns on the same considerations as it would for any other worker—was his work performed on a farm, and was it incidental…”

Reich v. Tiller Helicopter Servs., Inc. (5th Cir. 1993). “The fact that a minor and incidental part of the work of such an employee occurs off the farm will not affect this conclusion.”

Tipton v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 398 F. Supp. 743 (N.D. Tex. 1975). “29 C.F.R. 780.136. . 29 U.S.C. 203(f); 29 C.”

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.