Brief for American Farm Bureau Federation — Mitchell v. Budd

%

IN THE

Supreme Court af the

United States —

-Ocrosen Tens, A. DB. 1955 : Sees

a)

‘a ; No. 278

>

J AMES P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor,

United States ‘Department of Labor,

?

7

Petitioner,

ee VS.

JOSEPH T. BUDD, JR., and FLORENCE W. BUDD,

. CO-partners, doing business as J. ‘T. BUDD, JR., AND

COMPANY, KING EDWARD TOBACCO COMPANY

OF FLORIDA, and MAY TCP ACCO COMPANY.

Ne sspondé nts.

Owx Wrer or > CERTIORARI TO. THE U NITED STATES

Cocrt: or. APPEALS FOR THE Porte ‘Crrevrr.

Brief for Rictinen ‘Farm Bureau Federation

; as Amicus: Curiae.

_MARTIN BURNS,

608 South Dearborn Street

Chicago 5, Minois,

’ HArrison 79034.

ALLEN LAUTERBACH,

Merchandise Mart - Koom 2200,

Chicage 34, Htineis, ;

Michigan 2-1280,

Attorneys for

American Farm Bureau Federation.

Midwest Law Pri inting Co..- 326. N. Michi gan Ave

a see . theta ob ‘SS

ie

. Chicago

Rs

INDEX. - _

3 PAGE

Statement oo... VDP tos Weiner: we ee ; ;

Argument ote eagle eee fee a

ei

I,

SuMMary op ARGUMENT:

Bulking of tobaeco * is il practice ‘within the

‘definition ‘of agric ulture. Ander _Seetion- Eh} oe

of the Ac and © iherefore employees, engaged |

such bulking oper rations are exempt from w age.

and houg provisions under Section” i340) (6). a

(a) Section 3 (f) contains a broad, compre.

hensive, and far-reaching definition of the .

ere" etre Te 3.

(h) Legislative history of Sections 13 4a) (6)

‘and 3 (f) confirms that tobacco bulking

oper rations were intended to be exempt . 3

‘(e). Bulking is an. essential farming practice

in preparing tobaced for market 6:

(d) Exemption is. not destroved because, bulk-

ing practice is thnerconsuming, requires

Employées engaged in tobacee bulking sare ex-

empted under‘both Sections P38. (a) (6) aid

TS fa} (10) of the Act. SOUS RTE Se

~~

~~

‘

.

(a) As applied te the facts in! this ease,

-. «Section 13 ta) (6) exempts the eniplo sees

.° concerneik herein because the Aet clearly

“provides for such exemption. A eA

=a Valuables equipment, and knowledge of

ee operation PETA Be eo MY a ee EINE TI Pe ce 4

fe} -Phe pariiicnt OF Tah +h: is Tehl the

—ebIvities in question to he eXempt pnder

ee ec Section RRS 3 RS} uae senit ens snimtovacngenns ee

* & = Py

ii

(bh) Balking of tohuces Is an eXemipt operation :

under Section 3 ta). 10). a ji

tu) Regulations of the. \dministrator defining:

“areaq‘cof production are not within the

: F935 plainly designated, intention of. Congress

vs ban . id : . z . i rer .

: : ~anedsare therefore meconsistent with the Act i2

: . : @ Whee ; i eee

Svem ( ‘onelusion 0.000 inch eileen Is.

ween lain, ce eid : x

: , ; Tere Ota hed °

a ee : !

7 % oe

° 5 o

io - :

| Ne ' j » CITATIONS. ° :

“2a : , : : : , A ~

Cases: :

5 ‘

Addison v. Holly Hill Kruit pot Ce mee /-

cme poslcoeticeie 7,12, 18,45,17

Barron Coop. Creamery v. Wi We hea 140 F. a 4S4 | ed

Commonwealth v, ‘Grunseit, 67 CLLR. 5 ie: - 16

De int v. Pinehbeck, 4s. F. 2d. B82. . ee me 8

; Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation to. ; Met ‘omb,\ oe -

337 BLS. 150 oe SEES nO PY Ere 4 zs

Lynch y. Kea duibine Co., 967.U. 8. “ti es a

: Marie av. Waialua Agric ultural ('9,, ; 340. U. s, 4 6"

' National Labor Re dation® Boa v. John. ‘amipbell,

“Ine. 159 F.2d 186 28 le eet 7

Redlands Foothill Groves v. Jacobs, 30 FL Supp.

DUE: Sinockcecanen, sida ssa . 7

. ~ %.

B : % .

t. p »

-a

es :

> Me ir

Statutes : =

Pair Labor Standards Aet af 1928) 4s sinagstii te}

: emmys Wt) ¥, a” se : :

. 4, | of0. 532 ‘Stat. LW os amended” e) 726

G3 Stat. G1 (20-US.C. wt? |

4 4 Se et , , ef Py . »

: ec. ob (f) : ; 5

ee, 12. (az) (4G): : oS 10

See: 49. Ge) C00) oo 80 11,13, 16..17-

. . . : LP E } ce

Fair Labor Standar’s Amendments of S949

* . ‘ ; fis

63. Stat. 910; °°. me

Mee. 36 {ey 22... Siecle a eauaaert

~ Miscellaneous :

ST Cong Ree. : aire ce

Pt ne es a RG

Pp. et 0O eg a - pone | 4

P7658 ;......: : 2 Sy cue ee Media,

G3 Cong Ree. : : |

ae P. Tae: = end ie EP - ) : n ee

Re: ee one ii

rng MM the ee eae ee nS) pe

So I Pehle ce ee se gg

Pp. 9162-91634 | a,

’ Ip, Po OPS esha Be an kee ae

. Qea7 ae . . — , pease or sr sat . "tad 4

, } Pe aes Sa

Oy) Cong. Ree. : : ee | \

Pie a 3

P. 14869...

Souteciieeasna ee ae

tA. Seles eer oem Br ae

rs Ip. -TAS69-TASTO A St ei ee ee to

if, Rep.tNo, 1452, Toth Cong, Ist Sess. pp. 4, de»

Baus | Ree sen

H. Rep. No, 2182, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., p. - eats 3

Interpretative Bulletin No. 14, Wage and Hour

)

-

Division, Departinent of Labor, August 1939 _

Sl EL Rea ENS 2 orang Fe See RO SONU Pag BIG 32 0

U.S. Census of Poputatio’ 1950 Volume IL... 9. a 14

7 - e ; . . * R .

’ Pe ; a ig

\ Pay

J - N

| 5 :

& \

>> s

e

e 5 i

<«

¥ \

pba Sie ) IN THE eS SEINE ea

“SUPREME COUR. OF THE UNITED ATATES

; @-:* a he re : . &

@oroper Term, A. D. 1955.

. 2 a ; \ 6 Ms % <

No. 278 | oo ees

+ ). j : \<

J AMES P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor,

Nie

as $e: ' Petitigmer,

Vs. ass ‘ é i he

JOSEPH T. BUDD, JR, and FLORENCE W. BUDD,

. co-partners, doing business as J. T. BUDD, JR., AND

COMPANY, KING EDWARD TOBACCO COMPANY

OF FLORIDA, and MAY TOBACCO COMPANY,

‘ ie 2 ae ;

\

Ox W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE’ UNrrEp Graves \

\

Court or APpprats FOR @XeE Fiera Cigcurt. \

Brief for American Pires Bureau Federation -

: as Amicus Variae:: |

{

. Statement. sith :*

The American Farm . Bureau Federatag: is anon. *

profit corporation. organized under .the laws of the State

wf? ines With its pripeipal offiee in Chicago diners.

It as a voluntary OPM Zayon wof more than AP USAL Le

farhe aud ranceli families. in #5 States and ‘Puerto Rue

It Was -orgasizedd in TSLS fhe, purpose Gf promoting,

“ . ¢ ? f \ : “0

protecting, and representing the bustness: CCOMOMTG, °SG

cial, and educational interests wi the farigers @f the na

Hon amd ta develop agriculfure,

_ United States ‘Department of Labor; sis. Ne

-

The interest of the Minerigan | ics ake Be lera

tion in’ this case derives from the: fact thatthe: “yg

of the District’ Courf, which. Petitioner seeks to have: this

Court: rLappreve, wotld deprive many farmers of thix @a

tion of the are ‘ulture CXeiption with 1 respeet to pert aim *

Retivities which clearly fall within the intent, language

and purpose. of .the exemptions: provided by the ‘Fair

upon thre future of agriculture. > Ly" Fee

P| abor Standards Act, for. Agriv ulture, Restrictions upon. |

application. of these exemptions ‘have far reaching effects

win adloptitg the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congress .

“never7intended that the W age and Hour Division of. the—

Department ofgLabor would control, direct, have dominion

“over, or have any effect upon agricultural operations or

pursuits. Petitioner's brief clearly | shows an unauthorized

_ attempt by the: Administrator to ac complish this improper

objective, - ;

r >

As used in the Petitioner's brie = Be references will

the King Fdward and Miiy Record,

ee

%

“\ 5 - se ae

o.

t

a

Fe

be to the Budd Record, Ww hile “RK references will as

- ARGUMENT.

Se

Bulking of tobacco is*a practice within the definition

of agriculture under Section 3 (f) of the Act and therefore

employees engaged in such bulking operations are exempt ©

_-<from' wage and hour: provisions under Section 13. {a} -(6).

_ (a) Ba Ae =

Section 3 (f) contains a broad, comprehensive, .and

far-reaching definition of the term ‘Agriculture.’

Congress defined’ Cagriculture”’ ith Section 3Af) as fol- ,

lows: - Le ; /

v

af) Agriéultinie” includes farming in all. -its

branches and among other things aclifles the eulti-’

,..¥vation dnd tillage. of - the soil, ‘dairving, the produe-

| Sion, cultivation, growing and harvesting of anv agri: .

cultural oor- horticultural commodities * (ineluding

_ ‘connnodities defined as. agricultural _commodities® in

Seetion 1) (g¢),of the AgriculturakK Marketing Act, ‘as:

amended), the raising, of livestock, Hoes, fur-bearing

animals, or poultry, and any pridetices (including any

forestry, or lumbering* operations) perfarined by a

farmer oroonca farm ax an rnerdent ti ar in CONTIN’

with such. farmita operations, including: preparation

for market. aelivery te storage “Ar to market ar ty

carriers (for transportation to market. (Eephasis |”

4

supplied).

Ohare ee os

Legislative history of Sections 13-(a), (6) :and.3 (f)

confirms that tobacco bulking, operations we@ in-

tended to be-exempt. —

As ‘the bill which finally became the, Indy Lapar Stand

ards \et worked its:wav though the Jegislative proces.

to final’ passage, repented assurances were given hw mein

¥

Ki

YY

the farni in connection with the growing and markerine.

bers” of thie Congress that a full gkemiption, hid heen

accorded to all. aetivitres~ pert: ormed by: the farmer or on.

of farm crops. Nil agreed: that the ay rieigtural eXefaption

ow as to be plenty and that All vigriculture without excep-

tis om, Was exelniled Pwo thie coverage | of the Act. : :

+ e -

- “Peay

ap

It is obvious from .the ‘legislative istory that the bill

never would have: become law but. tor, such assurances

sand the, consequent feeling r on“the part of the legislators

that. all agriculture was in fact exempt. 85 Cofy. Rec.,

7393, Os 257. Z ‘ . x e ™ ‘

in Ma aa ate Co oF

‘The bill (S. 2479) was introduced: in the Senate on May

4, 1937, and. Was referred to the Senate Committee on’

Education’ and Labor, “Whic h wrote the broad definitian

of * ‘agriculture. 8.2475 as reported in the Senate, July

6, 1937, See. -2, _ pp- WOT. Se nator Black/ Chhairnean of the

Senate £ ominittee ine charge of the’ bill, stated to thie

Senate, ‘that the bill spee ‘ifically excluded workers ip agri-

, culture of all kinds: and of all-types: SI Cong. Ree. 7648."

W hen, he inade* this statement, the agricultural definition”

in the bill, insefar as if related to practiees ine ‘idental to

farming operations, limited the: exe hiption: to those rine:

tices ° “ordinarily” performed hy: a farmer as an incident

ro Sarmipg Ope rations, Cae IS Aas ges eae

in various colloquies between Se natok Blue i and ‘other

“Senators, the former tnade it clear, tit) te exemption

Applied to alk the thinue the farmer: “did: with. réferénee

ti predaei Ing his crops and marketing ‘them whether the

CPirpis Were eatton, fruits or Very: ‘tah le *. OF any a: thet * COM

modlity, Si Cong: Ree, TOOT, TADS, 7659... :

me . ; - - ° ie ; . . 3 ;

When. the bal, as sonended and prissed bs the Senate,

went to the House of Representatives; the House Taher

.

&

o, * Y XN - - . = . .

Cominitte’ “vewaoté the agricultural exeiiption and pir. ;

- -

Se @

Bots

posely struck: the word * copdlinierily’ 2 frown that putrt ate.

Jthe. delinttjon relatiig: to ine dental practices, Wh ‘Rep.

. No. 1452, 75th’ Cone, Ist Sess. pp. 45, WA. ‘The word y

ordinarily’ "never again- reappeared inthe’ definition,

Tlie bill ase it) was ‘first. reporter di‘ by the. House ‘daibor

“Cohmpittee was recommitted, to such Contimittee ‘and an

April 21, 1958; another draft of S. 247 was reported to’

the Honse, As so- reported, “once again: the definition. of,

“agriculture” Was broadened by ridding t6 the incfdental

practices portion. of the definition the sietivities of:

“preparation for market”, - “delivery to storage ”", and

“delivery * *”*

-to deine tor transportation to market.”

H. Rep. No. 2122, Moth. Cong., ord Sess. po 2. Inthis form

; the bill passed the House. — XS ; ou

The two Houses af Congress then held a ‘conference On»

the bill. In stich conference they not only retained eve ry

ame ndiment that had previously? browide ned the detinition .

of “agriculture” but they wént still further. They broad

ened the exeription still more by: exefnpting all, practices

performed. fv a farmer | ‘faring’ in Conjunegion” with |

83 Ong, Ree, V.)- W254.

sueh farming operations.”

o,

When the, conferenee--port was debated ‘in the Scnaw,

Senator Thomas sof Uteh, who Saud Gass r

Black as Chairmiun of the Senate Coniiittoc on Md ochtion

ard Labor, and was chairinan of the Senate conferes 4°.

stated fiat agrieultire, Was xrnurpted Prom the gape ration,

; cof the’ bill, thar he did aiof know of any kind of agriculture

that was jnelnded iif the- bill? and that the, dgfinition of

agriculture Was purposely made all-inclusive. $3. Cond

ee SMR hig Meee

*; -

This Court: has said that 7 TONETENS ONE mpted agricu!

‘tire from the tergiis * thy, oe Mair da ALOT Standards Aetoin

| broad, ine Tiisive te ru "und at “The exemption was’

= pa : Pa. . oe

; go ‘ ;

y + Pe ten « ¥§ <

J “ 8

J

ee

‘ a

4 .

‘ .

. .

: inellien

. a .

*°

meant to embrace the whole” field of agriculture, ‘and

sponsors of the legislation sa stated, 81 Cong. Rec. TOS;

698" (Mane) ja v. W aialina Agricultural Co, 349 VS:

O44, 209, 260). e

This Court further stabad in the Waialua case. in com.

menting on thie legislative history of the agriealtur: al

eicraption (p. 260): . eens aS i a .

a

“Although .this language Was described by: those

in charge of -the iin the Senate as ‘perhaps, the .

most comprehensive definition of agric ulture which

~ hes been included fn aniv one legislative proposal,” SI

Cong? Ree. 7648, its coverage was bron’ lened. until

.it became cote rminous With the siun of those ac tivities

necessary in the cultivation of crops, their harve sting,

cand their ‘preperation. fpr market, delivery to stor-

age or to market or to carriers fer transport: ation to

". |Rarket,?:” =f

.

° . .

t

-

| (c)

Bulking is an essential Yarming practice in pre-

ss paring rears for market.

The Court ot “Appeals picrectly concluded that every-

thing done by these farme ‘rs Was essential forthe market.

‘ran Wi ther evops, anti.” that tie work of Pneir Chigllovees,

the preparation for market of the leaf grown evel

vay on their farnis, constitutes “praetices> pe: formed’

bvea farmer as 3 an indidont to or in conjunetion with such

farming Operations, iichading preparation for market,’

within the meaning of Section F (Ff). RK 93.

The langus ty ce of Seetion x ft) could not hie mofe clear

tovevines an intent to exempt all’ activities performed |

the fartuer or onthe farna in connection with erowing

and om arketing the farm? s crops. :

~ ritetically every farmer in the U nitha State ‘sy, Whether

large’ or small, is concerned with preparing an. agnent-

a ; ° .

eo

as + . -e

—j—

fural or horticultural commodity for market. Almost all

fariners, as part of ‘their harvesting operations, haul- their

crops té a storage place ar a processing plant located

either on or off the farm or to- some market: A: great many

-of them conduct extensive processing’ operations upon

their own crops. Mor example, many fruit and vegetable

" farme rs pack and: can their own. fruits and vegetables;

many cotton farmers xm “their own cotton; “many poultry

-and hog t armers slaughter and dress ‘their poultry and

hogs. “The apple t armer, for example, may haul his ¢pples

to.a storage place on the t farnggor he iat, sort, wrap and

pac ‘k the apples and otherwise prepare them’ for market

or he may-process the applés in ene ‘form or another.

“hi naquestionably, When so performeyl, these are oper rations

performed by a farmer or on a& fatmeas an ine ident to or

In vonjunction with farming operations, Farmers Reser.

row cand Trrination Co.; v. Mek ‘omb, 5 SY C. SS. 150, 760,

+66, note. 1h; Redlands Foothill Groves vy. Jacobs. 30

BS ‘Supp. 995, . [O06 : Danni: v. -Pinchbeck. 158 K (Gy

882, 883: Addison et al v. Hoitly Hill Prat: Products. Inc..

322 UL S. 612;- National Labor Relations Board v. John

Camphell, Inc., lov F. Ls TS6, =.” Degen ;

a) rae

| Exemption is not destroyed because bulking prac-

tice is time-consuming, requires valuable ei acme

- and knowledge of operation.

The Petitioner argaes that tobacco Hulkinge is a cou

plie ated, tedious, diftic ult and. even sclentiie operation. as

distinguished from the actual! growing of tobacco. We

ennnot agree. In faet, tohaceo bulking is an easier, single

task than the actual production of the erop on Tarnis.

According. to the Reeord, nothing is added to. or taken

from the tebaceo during this hulking opesation, except

~

8

ot Ge

through the natural process of evaporation and fermenta-

tion, other than sprinkling with water or kasing (RIX 52).

The contention: of the Petitioner that the bulking of

tebaceo requires its mucheas 12 months Wane is not de-

terminative, or of any importance, to the questions ‘ine

volved in this proceeding. Stich period of tine is no ahore.

than is required for the actual growing or. production on

farms of many agric ‘ultural prodacts.

Considering this type of argument by the Petitioner;

we would not” be surprised to see the ‘Administrator

claiming that the actual growing of? Tape G2 shade. leat

tobaceo is not an exe mmpted agric ultural activity bee Que

it is grown in fields ¢omple tely enc losed and ¢overed: with

cheesed loth shade. Pe eS

_(e) AS ae oer

The Department of Labor has held the ‘activities

in question to be exempt under Section 13. (a) (6).

oe Bulle ‘tin, No 14, issued in August, 1939,

“H. Labor Law Reporter P4488), in construing thie

agrie eels exemption, stated in paragraph 10 ¢h):

“(b) The terny ‘preparation for market’ must be

treated differently with respect to various, comniodi-

ties. The following activities, atone olliers, wher

performed by a farmer, seem to be *inekided within

the term: Yass A dienes Me et Ss

1 Grain, seed, and forage crops: — Weighing, -bin-

ning, stocking, cleaning, grading, shelling, serting.

packing@and staring, a

° 4 I ruits and vegetables, Assembling, I Ninny,

-) |

ripening, cleaning, grading, sorting, drving. presery

« ia e

Ing, packene, stormy, and cunning. 9°

3. Nuts (pecans, walntts, peanats, sete.) Grad-

ing: cracking, sbelling. cleaning, sertings packings and

storing. Unshelled muts: gud operfariving the sain

e

ae —I9—

«

eperations except cracking and shelling, upon the -

hut meats, :

> .

4.0 Sugar.—-Manufactiaring raw sugar, cane, or

maple svrup and molasses. + Set IRE, Sires

- . & . ? a ;

o .Khegs, ‘Handling, cooing, rrading, and pack-

Ing. * : : Het : ;

. . .

6... Wools, Gfading and packing. os i

7. Dairy prodavts.Salting, «printing, wrapping,

packing and storing buttey: ripening, molding, wrap

ping, packing, and storing cheese; and canning or -

packing any other dairy product. aye ea

8 Cetton— Weighing, gimiing, and storing cotton:

hauling, delinting,. cleaning, sacking, and: storing cot-

tonseed. d "ass

©

“9, Nursery stock, Handling. Wrapping, packag-

ine and grading. 3 | : | ut ero

TO. ~ Tohaceo.—Handiing, ie E bulking, strip-

ping, tving, sorting.” stemming, packing, and -storing,

It. Livesteek.— Handling and loading, - eae

12: Poultrys Culling, grading, coopime, and Joad-

See Sg ee Be rake

‘ 13. eae eres extracting, heafitg, rip-

ening, removing comb, straining, cleaning, grinling,

weighing, blending, packing, and storige. ;

14. Pur.—Removing the pelt. serdpmg. drying,

patting on boards and’ packing.” . orate pee.

According to a press release. issued by the Department a

at the same time as Paterprefative Balletin No. 14, the :

Department's interpretations ,of the agricultural exemp- ;

Syern in the Act were tiace only after lengthy conterences

With representatives of employers, emplovees and other

et

ost

‘

@baaa-.

ts

tien!

erestiel parties: Authorities nf the Conited States /-De-

artinent of Agrieultire were also consulted. Mitch time

was devoted by the Department's attorneys to a study of

lacticls

. . . nd . . ‘y?

ve bictary ot Seoteon Ta (4): 1%) Che Denart-

oat

ae 6:

also had its economists tunke, economie studies jn

—]0—

order to assist in a proper determination of the scope of

5 the exemption. It was only after these lengthy investicn

tions and diseussions ‘that the’ Department announced it

opinions on the. sufijeet. Such opinions Were widely | cir.

enlated: through Interpretative Bulletin No, T4. press

releases and othec, releases to the yariows labor law pub

*

lieations. ° ; ' :

- Since “bulking” was listed under “Pobaceo™ (item 10), ©

tobacce farmers, have had every reason tog believe that :

this) was one of the exempt activities, even ‘within the

Adininistrator’s resthicted application of the exemption

provisions of the Net. Pasay

las i

IT.

Employees engaged in ‘tobacco bulking are exempted

under both sections 13 (a) (6) and 13 (a) (10) of the Act.

(a) et

As applied to the facts in this case, Section 13 (&) (6)

‘exempts the. employees concerned herein because the

Act clearly provides for such exemption.

>,

x

-. Authoritatively paraphrased, the Act provides that

the provisions for. tminiman wages “and maximum hours.

shali not apply to any enrplosee engaged. itr agriculture.

“Application of the statutory detation of “aericulture

to tobacco bulking has alrdady been dikeussed in this brief.

7

(See supra, p. 6) 0° sy

Bulking of tobacco is an exempt cperatian under

‘Section 13 (a) (10). . pee

- We pcunnot: agree with: the Petitioner’s arguinent that’

bulking Of tobacco is tore of an INGUSEPIAP process than

<

~

-

+ . Sse s ; >

by Congressman. Diertidnn dinring consideratron of |i)

an agricultiiral operation and, therefore, is: nat coverce

j Dis |

under Section Ib ¢tay(lay |. i — oe ee

Phe operat LNs en umieratty: “doin this: Seetion (eg. 1p hi ind ee

ing, pac king. storing, processing, drying’), cover at overs

comprehensive field in agriculture. This was. obviously

intended ty Conuress.- e

(dn Mav 24. LOSS, thie following stafements Were minde-' . 4

a 5 . é : : 4 ns zs ae } .

arnendiment { W hich daeesine the ces CMIpTems Section |

(a) (10) ter the W age and Hour Sill): :

iia x | bill ‘is aiined- at, sub-standard. libor cond?

tions, and | surbanit that any Member of this’ House

who is familiar with the kind of institution that this

amendment J have offered is ‘aimed at will agree

With me when | say that sub-stoadard labor condi

t} Ons do. petenist in these inestit dons Tn yan arene

*

ment-I inserted in fle Record yesterday Tinelided — ¢&

the. word ‘procéssins.” [ éall attention to the fact

that in the pending amendment that. word is stricken:

out. T struck. it out’fer the reason that Some Mer.

bérs thought that proeéssing would inelides the mak

ing of cotton nnd wool inte. textiles, and‘ pulibe ro into. ,

finished. prodiets, nd a loner dist ot thins of that

kind, “The amendrrent shave offered iInelieles | only

the first processing of things of that kind. 77,

amend wr yt af hats a atfered includes only fa’ ref. si

processing nit fPriais thant Jorainne aff the farwi. The

prnygrtant sport ie thal We farmer paus the Gill fer.

this processing.” .¢Fauplasis supplied) (S83. Cong

Ree FH > eee See ake

Daring cofsiderition bythe S nate athe TOGO An ond:

Mics th thie Net, Semitor Pepper nude the falbew mts

<tatytient Ly Thy weer 10 “V? ring rs. cert dy y the mrt

of the existing EXER n Seationm ota 14): Bo aay:

. : : - : id

‘In -other words, the processing of ae

conmsoditios which becurs Within the aren of pre

duetioy is at the prisent tine exetipt frem the min

om

—I9—

Se mR

timnunt wage cand maximum diours previsions “of the

law.” (95 Cones Ree. 14869). ’ ne

It tibaeeo bulking was uitended. by Cameress to ke

3 eee ep ee gee bigs Rate Bip: Mh SY ft eae

eonsicbered on indastrial process, them whi ciel the De

3 .

<

partment of Lathyr include biflking in its Interpretyt:

o

‘Dulletin No 14. isshed im August. f8sq as one -ol thie -

& farmer cir spreoaring a eotmanadity

°

CX pt activities

for market? ¢supwa. pyre My sat -

7 itisa well reeognized principle thatl tt The quan, ab.

. ‘ : : . §

vious and rttional meaning of a statute is always 46. he

preferred too any eNrrots, Tir row hidden sermse thi meth"

ing but the exigency of a’ hard case and the ingenuity and

study of an acute and powerful iitelleet would diseaver”

thaumch v. AlsworthStephe ns-Co:, 267 U.S. o64,. 370). Ad-

ninistrative orders, like statntes, are notte he? given

strained and finnatural éenstruetions, The dansunwe of

a regulation shonld be eonsidered sas intended to ‘erties,

a oe

and not to entrap) those who are: governed by if. Barron

° = *

i? i ee P 3 } ek . } b | 3 - 0343 ye hd .

Coop-CUreamery-of alo vi Wickert. 1460 ped. ti, 25.n 45%,

; i

(c)

: ‘Regulations of the’ administrator defining “Area

of Production’’ are not within the plainly designated

_» intention-of Congress and, are thergfore inconsistent

with the Act.

"The Court of \ pope als correct] cgpelivded :) af th,

Adtiuinistrrtor eKxeeeded hi- maittieersty ony exeludine f porn?

ave

j o < ‘6 ° . ‘1

the ares of proalueticn, anv Coty, Town, or trian - pies

-¥ BS ‘ 7

>) 2 es " ee ° ee .

Of 2008 oF greater population RE tas

dts regogenized that in thease eNerpeticnim cv ipielas herein

iW . shedreray Tore Pe eee “ae N sheen t ved etn d cas all

TPMT) SSP SSPE Ee ee ee ACTION, the » TLRS =] iii higiis

: } , ** . . i

perepeekly Wert Tihied aVietivesize Qu the taelors reteyint

. : - ; ‘ be) _ , ad ’

te the general purposes of the. Net, Addisun +. H /

- «4

ert

: a

é ee ayes j ‘ cee

Abi yu "Produ tates. ay Be? i &: Hua, HLowever, his

; rowel and idence aol 6 \ pression are nlwavs: . hy.

the rath: Ante Loy Courts, nS Mike emipyu sized : this.

(rsugrt m the Helly HM ease We ban neither «Pre ie

- her cont Pact the’ iteneted exeniption mred.

The legislation bigtory of -tha: Ait ‘clonrhy | inedlieates: that

it Was meof the intent ot Congress for the Administratar

to adopt suet) iL rextrietive. el, Hines ot area vot see

tron, “This is qvideneed by. the comments made by Sen”

ator: Schwelenthaeh, and “Re “ie - ntas e Bi LOTTA, OM her.

Sponsored anientinients provid! iyivy Yor’ the exempt ions

withiti he “prea of quroduetion’ whith aere later in

corporsited. | omta Seetion 1S: ae C1 of then Wet is

The. followin, eunones wep thighele. ha Ni Natt ca tos

: -Sehweflenbach> an Jails 30, Ma. In Ans W4 r to ibestion-s

voiicern ng fis proposed ‘ivwedicants ;

“Mr, Connally : Mr. President PY head Vike to gesk

.. the Senator from Washingten a question. Would

: not. the effeet oO. ts ame telinemt be te exempt ad

industria] watchemaés and packing plants a apple

territert? ‘There is nowlimit, Pie condition is that

they are packing plants; “and if they are, they ‘are

exenipt, eee a gree ;

Ml sy Sehwellonbiveh . * if it packing: plant ~ Wwirk

hired pen fresh fruits or Veuetabtes, aT their iw OO)

nataval state, within the ine uate produ etren arent,

if would he exempt, poe oes

: Mr. Monnally = *' Ms understanding is that the

large s! apple tacking plant am the world ts leuersd cot

A : : ' - , .

. AN Une heste ,. V a. rigiittm the heartocol a wreat apps

*produeeny reyvion fe “Phat oid bee ene riget. ow nile '

Mr Sehwell Hentere! oS ie by vi orb edeorres hry thrid

pant os ns deseri be} iy i the rynre ndrient ie weld "

Ne PST Crone _ Rye Ws | Fe ba eu

° .

. ma

‘ i es =

“ z . i wpe

e,. EL sey ie i

he ‘had: received from Mr. Kdward. (Ne

Spb aie en |. on eee ae

“During the debate: of: Congressinan Budrttunn’s anemic

“ment Fsee supra, pe TL), the res bo hee tibers of the

House the» folowing “pagag raphe Tron uw oletter that

dent of the Americans Farn mee Fedeaation ;

“We believe the bill should. be claitited. se as to

dssure Athe exemption af ¢ nn Ba in. such ‘agricul

ture, and hortic nlture industries in’ raral areas. 7+

“Failure to exempt these operations when. per-

» formed in rural areas Where conditions are so great:

ly different from the situation in large industrial and

urban. centers, will result: in’ increased casts of pre

cessing and handling these products whieh will be.

reflected back in lowpr prices .pa tid te farniers, ee b.*:

“Cong. Rée. 74027. | ately

i = EER ieee Pe a hae :

- After reading: the first, paragraph, . Mr Bierman com:

mented, ** Phat is ay HV ane ndrie nt takes in. Mr. Poise

ranns amendiment was nde pied by alvote of 149. fo 134.

185 Cong, Rec. May 2h, 184s, per, THOT).

‘The bends Z state nie net hy Pt wate Ny hu elt, whach that

o> 6 8 - e : , . re ' =

I ine beste - j | f wh c me i, hh, = eee 7; on a proder Pray ee

pe aah sal apper es? Se ae mm hie of belie fered thas hire pope

oe

lation “? Woy ave hie ate) "an 140), Mids 1 9%), (Census ait

Pespouadeet peony, ra50, Voblame Ele Pe. eds Prrespeet ive: of mars

arguments as-to What edraedities or getivities are coveral

bey Section bis fail 1, thier crn de Ween ct ttesstiongy Cooney

‘ine the sntent of Congress to inehude Simei) cities as. Warn

chester with a population of T2000) as begae within. the

~

“aren of production” bn facet, we can find fo evidences

eg that (. ‘UneTess intended: that nN popalatien tds he tread if

determining ‘tarea of prodwetion. ty

. } 4242 ger :

CL OnTarNaiA what trite Peet etientyers qeeorpiergmein, f 03

of. the 2 nil pepitation test’ was motiat issue op tee Mada,

All ease. This Courts in holding invalhd , thee Acipines

trator’s exclusion of est aublish vents duiving, In excess ol

~*®en eniptovees,. stated:

ily them Presi.

mie |

a

ee ies oP 4, °

86 ‘onéluding, then, that when Congress granted ON

éemptions for Workers within the “ared of production”

(as defined by thes Administratery’ + eal the.

Administrator to the drawing of geographic lines,

, aS even thomele he anav take into. neceount all rélevant

econotie factors in the elivieesof areas open te lim,

thes sc er which Tende, diserigumations within the

area defined tre; py vine thee a to plants @&

With Jess than: seven empoevecs are With vires) (S227

of es ee “ Say. yale :

re . : Se ’ ne ; éF aaa . id

oy ie ‘ 51% 7

We recognize the dittieui=w involved an -oprépafing a

det’ nition of the “area.of production’: Which will not he

?

sub pect tee SO eri Weigh. | eiiis prrekafeare rn Wi as “pointed out

ain a letter dated: June 17, TO, Troe the then Secret: ry

of "Agriculture to the Chairman of the House Comittee

on Edutation finn Labor dur) ine the thine that ‘aaa ‘ra-

Jiom was being given to the amendments ot of the: Aet.. This.

Zi . 2 sy - » °

letter reads on part as fotlows:

To de not othink To need to set ferth in “detail

the diftic alfies of G@fining the terme tarea-of produe-

ae Eee Departrient is aware of these difficulties,

having been consultéd by “the . Secretary of Labor.

prior. to the issnanee hy the Adnrinistrater of the

/ Wage and Hour Division of the present regulations

under the Mair Liahor Standards Net dealing with:

2 this. matter, The sithjeet his been one of fairly tex-

' teysive aiseusstin cand correspondence: ‘hefween the

Nepartient vf Lanher and the Denartinent af \erienl

ae ture. As a pesul! of these diseugsions, Lam in aren. -

nent) With the - Administrater -aiait. the “areaslof

prodaeteon’ sancept iscin! eremtls dmeguitiible mane hat.

corrective action -sheold be taken hy Congress to

eliminate these shes Halt ies in the Interest of? sonned

pubic pote” as (istry hee, te tT. Mad, =

“Thus, the Sew! retary Was saving that-the definition was

sedritteadts iyyeenuait: alle o Phe Seeretars “alsp aytvused (‘an

-gress that he didi mot favor anv transfer of authority te

* i ; . , . ee d vA o

. . : ; - 4

— : - @ °

a

Ww

‘ewith the pupae ut definition’ of the Administrator. OS

_ tion of * “area of production.” é ites

that Congress has, in effect, approved thie.

; a

during its ‘considers ation #f -the Mair Labor Sta’

.

—~16—:

teetort the detihi

W e- canhot agree with the argument of th petitioner

Htriimistia-

a) (10)

dards

Amendinents, The. legislative history af the: ame ny

tor’ 's definition since it did. not amend section }35

to the. Act in: 140 shows th: at Congress was not satist

Cong. Ree., pp. 14869, T4870. During tlie ‘consider: ation

of the ( Conference Report, ‘Sen: itor Pep pper made the fat-

lowing statenient: oe :

LT think it is the concensus of the opinion of the.

conferées that they. hape the Wage and Hour Admin-

Istrator will, éonstantly endeavor to improve the defi-

nition’ of ‘aren of production,’ and, especially in the

case’ of eotton, that. he will are i as her: ally ais

possible” (95 Cone: * Ree, Octoher TS. 1949) p.14860),

However, aNhis Court “has ‘said, ¢ But it is no war-

rant fer extending a statute that experience tinay slisclose

' that at should have made more comprene sive’ (folly

Hill’ case 822 ILS. 6 7). The naturat meaning’ of words.

exnnotche displ: food by reference to diffiewlties ins admin

istration. {( ‘om nionicem thy” e's Grunseit (10497. G7 C2. i.

AS, St), ; a of

: 4 Vv § eee . pte

ig.no Substance in Petitioner's argument thaget

a and ratified the Adtninistrator’s defi

nition Marea at production when it adopted Seetion 16

(e). of the Fai Rather Stindards Aine ndmet nts of 1049.

See grief War Secretary oF Labor, py. 45 Tris (tedp~

vressional action iyeredy concluded. that existing resu

'

beitiorms WW

/were c@nsistent with the Net ehenld remain

in el fert untoss “subsequently amended” by the — Adininis

trator. Any ordes-regitation, of} interpretation ineon

sistent with provisions of Tair Lahey: Standards Net wus

ae ; : /

.

|

.

\.

cards Net. Bee oy

1

postion fakencby thr Court in She dd Mas Bharl «

he considered ns it confirmation or ratification af the’ det

nition.” Passage of “the Taq aimendine nts through the

kpncre ssonal lewixadtive process Was hof the testine

ground for tie peer ty J sutyiieney, “adequa rev-or leaality

' of any regulation of the v Sininistr Hor,

According to athe cs dart of Appen Arphic le cist: if) ve

history of Neetion |e (a) (10) makes ¢ Ad that its primary

“purpose, was to prevent edise ‘rinvination against the smal)

farmer, “RB OAGE See Senator Sehwellenbach's comments, 3

RB 164. If the present definition which exéludes towns ot *

25M) er more from the. “avea of production’ is upheld -

\ by this Court, then it is @ntirels possible that dhe futuré 3

ourst-of agriculture’ will be in. the direction of larger.

‘ty farming operations, requiring Substantial Hinaneial

resoXrees, so that midiny of these activities covered in’ Nee:

thon 1K (21) (10) cah De performed on the farm.

Continted enforce; Te nt-ef the regulation under the

ministre ato definition of “area of production” may.

. XY : .

well carfse persons, such as the responde mts ere, to

"change or mov their tobacco bulking oper: itiens to other

locations, bea Ne never authorized -such Major <ecial,

\:

CCOMOMLG, parity changes | in agriculture of this Country»

to be aecomplished berter gnise ot. the Fair Laber Stam

2

. a

We, thereforesuree thi Court to declare the ANdministrae

S

‘tor's delitrition tor bee® REN ua ty: ‘ rad thisit she. bye reeiles tert a

redefine ‘aren of produet ion to vontorh With. the CIeALEN

\ rule . 5 ial ie

at (aonurass, has wetted firblesy “Tie

A .

OND TEE shen] nisin:

-* 4 , > . : ‘ : :

“We agree therefore with thy -Cairtuit Court of AY)

: ‘seals itt fymeditie | aiAe aid Tie Vitrtatienis tts tas The mute

} r. 1 .¢

ber of TT ase S Within the -detined areal Dut’ wean

5" e —

‘not follow that eee in deleting&d thrs part of the

a 3 ; P \

* @

Neypressty PNCOY tedes 2 bo Stuf. 920. 9 Thi -action eannet .

4

. ; ; . Martix Burys, -- a

a es So tha? i, pe

‘ ea eae spre ,

oe regulation and, by applying what re

“nating cof the definitions exempting, Hloliy Phil's. em-

a) from the requirements 1 the Act. Sinee the

“PPOVISION | as ‘to the namber. Gf > employees was not

wuathorized, the: entire definition of whieli tha ii limita

tion Was a part must tall, We can his relly assume that

the Administrator-would have definéd ‘aoof pro-

daction’, merely by deleting the sant (rovision,

had’ he kane cof its invalidity. dt would -be thy shiver.

est Guesswork to believe that thy cliningtion: of an im-

. portant factor-in the Administrator's Cay ett tion world

e have left his equation: unaffected even if he did not

here insist upon its impottance, [t is not for ie to

. write a definition. That is the Admiistrator’s duty.”

(322 U. S. OTS) 2 . ; ee ; _- 7 % ¢ Je ogee

- nis Ev,

a .

oy Cone gaia,

ag, 2

——- re

> For the foregoing: reasorrs, thie tobacco bulking: practices*

and operations desetibe din this case should be beid to he

“exempt frdém the wage and hour provisietrs of the Fair

Labor Standards Act and, therefore, the judeme nt of the

— Court of Appeals ‘should he sustesned. -*

; er *. - . ad od - ¢ r.

ek — Respectfully submitted,

» ~ ALLEN, LAU MERBABM, 6

c

Attorney sfor

is American Farnr Burean Federation,

ad its eo :

‘ a

¥ . ° ( ’ v4