29 C.F.R. § 780.154

Delivery “to market.”

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

The term “delivery * * * to market” includes taking agricultural or horticultural commodities, dairy products, livestock, bees or their honey, fur-bearing animals or their pelts, or poultry to market. It ordinarily refers to the initial journey of the farmer's products from the farm to the market. The market referred to is the farmer's market which normally means the distributing agency, cooperative marketing agency, wholesaler or processor to which the farmer delivers his products. Delivery to market ends with the delivery of the commodities at the receiving platform of such a farmer's market (Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473). When the delivery involves travel off the farm (which would normally be the case) the delivery must be performed by the employees employed by the farmer in order to constitute an agricultural practice. Delivery by an independent contractor for the farmer or a group of farmers or by a “bird-dog” operator who has purchased the commodities on the farm from the farmer is not an agricultural practice (see Chapman v. Durkin, 214 F. 2d 360, cert. denied 348 U.S. 897; Fort Mason Fruit Co. v. Durkin, 214 F. 2d 363, cert. denied 348 U.S. 897). However, in the case of fruits or vegetables, the Act provides a special overtime pay exemption for intrastate transportation of the freshly harvested commodities from the farm to a place of first marketing or first processing, which may apply to employees engaged in such transportation regardless of whether they are employed by the farmer. See subpart J of this part 780, discussing the exemption provided by section 13(b)(16).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1981–2013 · leading case: Eutolio A. Rodriguez v. Pure Beauty Farms, Inc., 503 F. App'x 772 (11th Cir. 2013).
Eutolio A. Rodriguez v. Pure Beauty Farms, Inc., 503 F. App'x 772 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The only authority Rodriguez and Hernandez cite for this proposition is 29 C.F.R. § 780.154 . However, that regulation applies only when the farmer uses an independent contractor to transport his agricultural products to a wholesaler or processor and relinquishes ownership or…”
Samuel v. Donovan, 512 F. Supp. 375 (M.D.N.C. 1981). “See 29 C.F.R. § 780.154 . As stated by defendant’s counsel at the hearing, seasonal stemmery workers who handle tobacco in its unmanufactured state arguably would be migrant workers under the ALJ’s analysis.”
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.